Appeal against single judge order dismissing suspension affidavit challenge. Court found no merit in appeal, upholding suspension based on allegations and admitting by appellant, yet directed inquiry conclusion within eight weeks.
Die respondents to conclude inquiry within eight weeks; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
W.A. NO. 1423 OF 2012
Date of Judgment: 20.11.2012
Between:
V. Radha Krishna
…Appellant
and
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad Hyderbad and others
..Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
W.A. NO. 1423 OF 2012
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, ACJ)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of Hon’ble Single Judge dated 9.7.2012 passed in W.P.No. 20602 of 2012. While the writ petitioner/appellant was working as a conductor in respondents-corporation, he was suspended by the respondents vide order dated 23.6.2012 on certain allegations of misconduct. The suspension order was challenged in the writ petition. The
Hon’ble Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition finding no merit in the writ petition. His Lordship held that,
“It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a settled proposition of law that suspension should not be resorted to in a routine manner. There can be no dispute with this proposition, but it would have to be examined on the facts of each case as to whether the suspension of the employee was resorted to routinely. In the present case, allegations are levelled against the petitioner to the effect that he acted detrimental to the interest of the Corporation. The evidence of the driver seems to support the charge levelled against him. There is therefore sufficient material to warrant further enquiry. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the suspension of the petitioner has been done in a routine manner.”
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner/appellant has only tried to impress this court that the charges levelled against him are not such that would warrant his suspension and therefore there is no question of placing him under suspension. But it appears from the charge sheet which has been issued to the writ petitioner/appellant as well as from the suspension order that most of the matter is being admitted by the writ petitioner/appellant and the driver also gave statement on certain things against the writ petitioner/appellant. In
these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant has, however, submitted that the writ petitioner/appellant has already given reply to the charge sheet issued by the respondents and requests for a direction to the respondents for early conclusion of enquiry. In these circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall take steps in the matter to conclude the enquiry within eight weeks from today.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. No costs.
_____________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
___________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
Dt. 20.11.2012 KR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether suspension of a conductor based on allegations requiring enquiry was done in a routine manner warranting quashing.
V. Radha Krishna
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
