L MURTHY Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order, dated 18-2-1986 of the Commissioner for Transport (first respondent) keeping petitioners under suspension pending regular departmental enquiry is challenged, in these Writ Petitions.

(2.) Petitioner in first Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 3696 of 1986) is a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles and petitioner in second case (Writ Petition No. 3697 of 1986) is a Stenographer in the Office of the Regional Transport Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'RTO'), Kolar. Case of petitioner in first Writ Petition is that pursuant to a direction given by RTO on 24-1-1986 to check and inspect motor vehicle bearing No. ADC 3999 while circulating a complaint received regarding its mis-use and/or in discharge of his duties as Inspector of Motor Vehicles, intercepted said vehicle on 30-1-1986 at about 7-45 p.m. at. Palar Bridge, when vehicle was on its way to Bangalore. from Tirupathi. Immediate defects found are noted in check-slip-Annexure-C and certain other defects noticed on detailed inspection on succeeding day are noted in Annexure-D. It is stated that as vehicle was intercepted during night, process of inspection could not be completed on the very day but completed on next, day, lodging the vehicle in the custody of Rural Police, Kolar. It is stated that necessary arrangements for transmission of passengers was made and vehicle produced before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolar, on 1-2-1986. Case of Petitioner in Second Writ Petition is that he is only a Stenographer in the office of the RTO and has nothing to do with executive work.

(3.) Vehicle has been released on 1-2-1986 as per orders of learned Magistrate, Kolar.