The respondents have also filed their counter. The matter is a factual dispute as to whether knowledge can be attributed to the petitioner or not about the presence of E3 unauthorized aluminum pipes in his cabin. According to the petitioner, he has just reported to duty at 6.00 a.m. and he was required to take the vehicle out. Therefore, there was never any opportunity for him to place any unauthorized material in the cabin of the vehicle. Whereas, Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the very presence of unauthorized material in the driver’s cabin of an outgoing vehicle has to be viewed seriously, otherwise material belonging to the Corporation would go out of the depot unaccounted for. This is a case where negligence can be attributed to both sides; most significantly the DGT vehicle did not have doors to the driver’s cabin. Consequently, anyone can gain access thereto and the vehicle was parked in the Depot after it was already loaded with the material and the cabin is sealed in the presence of the other staff members of the corporation. Since, it is not disputed that the petitioner has put in more than 25 years of service and in view of the fact that the vehicle in question did not have doors on either side to the driver’s cabin, it would only be appropriate to direct the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Warangal, to forthwith review the case of the writ petitioner as to whether it is really necessary to place the writ petitioner under suspension for the purpose of conducting the enquiry. The purpose of placing an employee under suspension is to ensure that he will not tamper with the evidence available on record and he will not seek to influence the witnesses, who are likely to speak against him. As the facts revealed in this case that the material has already been gathered against the petitioner, I am sure it is very unlikely that he will have any chance to tinker with the evidence available on record or seek to influence the witnesses who are likely to speak against him.
