ROWTHU NAGESWARA RAO Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, while working as a driver with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the Corporation'), was assigned duty on 09.05.2013 to drive the bus bearing Registration No. AP 29Z 0088 plying between Anakapalli and Battili. Then, a breath analyzer test was conducted which gave a beep sound indicating that the petitioner was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. The breath analyzer test was conducted in the presence of the service conductor and Security Sub -Inspector of the Regional Manager's Office at Visakhapatnam. According to the respondents, the electronic breath analyzer has shown the reading as 72 mg/100 ml. Based upon this finding, the respondents are prima facie satisfied that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time when he reported for duty. Since he was a driver of a public carrier, he cannot be assigned any such duties as a driver. For the purpose of conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the Depot Manager considered it appropriate to pass orders through his proceedings, dated 05.06.2013 placing the writ petitioner under suspension. It is this suspension order dated 05.06.2013 which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Smt. N(P). Anjana Devi would contend that the breath analyzer test is not the final test, which can reveal accurately as to whether a person is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or not. The respondents ought to have referred the petitioner for medical examination if they had suspected that he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Only a medical examination by a competent doctor would have revealed the truth or the lack of it behind the allegation. Instead, the respondents have proceeded mechanically in the matter and placed the writ petitioner under suspension unjustly. It is therefore, contended that the order of suspension deserves to be interdicted so as to enable the writ petitioner to continue to function as a driver.

(3.) AN order of suspension is liable to be interfered with in extremely limited circumstances. One such is where an incompetent authority passes any such order or in rarest of rare cases where the power to place an employee under suspension has been exercised so arbitrarily as to shock the conscience of the Court, but seldom such an order can be interfered with by a judicial review Court acting as an appellate authority on fact.