S SUDERSHAN REDDY Vs. APSRTC MUSHEERABAD HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of the Corporation in this writ petition seeks the declaration that the action of the second respondent-Depot Manager in terminating his services is invalid in law.

(2.) The petitioner was charge-sheeted in proceedings No.02/104(119)/88-MNCL dt.7-10-1988 which consists ofthe following charges: " 1. For having violated the rule issue and start. 2. For having collected the fare Rs.7.50 and failed to issue tickets to (6) six passengers who boarded your bus at Colony and found travelling without tickets to bound at Takumatla ex- stages 3 to 5. Hence obtained TPT No.044/618120 to 125 of Rs.1.25 denomination which constitutes under misconduct of Regulation 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulation 1963. 3. For having collected the fare of Rs.2.00 and failed to issue tickets to 2 passengers who are found travelling from colony to Indaram ex-stages 3 to 4. Hence obtained TPTNo.279/108054 to 055 of Rs. 1.00 denomination." Pending enquiry the petitioner was placed under "put off' duty. At that stage the present writ petition was filed in this Court on 28-10-1988 and this Court on 31-10-1988 granted interim direction directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service. There was no stay of further proceedings in the enquiry. In the counter filed by the Corporation it is stated that enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report. After receipt of the enquiry report, what the Corporation has done is not disclosed in the counter and the learned standing Counsel is also not in a position to tell the Court. But it appears that since there is an interim direction to continue the petitioner in service the disciplinary authority might not have passed the final order. It is hardly necessary to state that pending departmental enquiry an employer can keep the concerned employee under suspension. Since the petitioner was an adhoc daily wage employee and he did not satisfy the definition of 'employee' as defined under the regulations, it seems that the Corporation directed to place the petitioner on 'put off duty pending enquiry. Therefore in that context it should be held that placing the petitioner under 'put off duty can be equated to placing him under suspension pending departmental enquiry. It is not the case of the petitioner that the action of the Depot Manager keeping him under 'put off duty is tainted by mala fides or the Depot Manager lacked power to keep him under 'put off duty. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the Management of the Corporation. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

(3.) We make it clear that now, it is permissible for the management to continue the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner further and pass appropriate final order.