Disposed

K. Yakoob, v. Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Telangana HC13 Jun 2014WP/16138/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition challenging suspension of a bus conductor alleged to be drunk at work. Prima facie serious allegation made; petitioner to defend in departmental enquiry. Corporation directed to complete enquiry within eight weeks or reinstate petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order set aside; petitioner reinstated if enquiry not completed within eight weeks.

K. Yakoob, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.16138 of 2014

¶2

ORAL ORDER:

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, apart from perusing the record.

¶4

Since the issue involved in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage.

¶5

Shorn of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that the petitioner, a Conductor working in Kodad Depot of the respondent Corporation, has been subjected to certain disciplinary proceedings. To dilate further, on 08.05.2014 when he was conducting the bus of the respondent Corporation between Kodad and Manthralayam, the bus is said to have developed some technical snag. To attend to that problem, the bus was taken to Kurnool- I Depot, where, as per the record, on the complaint of the passengers that the petitioner had been in a drunken state, the RTC constable subjected him to breath analyzer test, which is said to have come positive. Consequently, he was placed under suspension through proceedings, dated 23.05.2014, and the disciplinary proceedings initiated.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that it was very clearly stated that the service Driver was present at that time. His statement given to the Depot Manager of Kodad Depot, however, made it clear that he was not at all aware of the said incident. He has also taken pains to convince the Court that

¶7

the very charge is absolutely vague. Despite the Corporation having very sophisticated breath analyzer test equipment, no particulars were forthcoming with regard to the percentage of alcohol and other particulars. Accordingly, he has urged this Court to set aside the order of suspension, leaving it open for the authorities to proceed with the enquiry while the petitioner is in service.

¶8

This Court does not propose to go into the merits of the matter. Prima facie, a serious allegation of being in a drunken state while on duty has been made against the petitioner who would be given every opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. It is stated that the petitioner has already submitted his explanation. Needless to observe that if there are any lacunae in the process of the disciplinary proceedings, including the vagueness of the charge, if any, the petitioner is at liberty to take advantage of it.

¶9

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was motive behind the authorities of Kurnool-I Depot in implicating the petitioner in what is said to be a false charge, this Court declines to go into that aspect since it is absolutely premature. At any rate, in the interests of justice, it is observed that the respondent Corporation may expedite the process of enquiry and complete it as early as possible, at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If enquiry could not be completed within the said time, the respondent Corporation shall reinstate the petitioner into service thereafter, though it is at liberty to proceed with the enquiry. It is made clear that the petitioner shall co-operate in facilitating expeditious completion of the enquiry. It is further made clear that he could not take advantage of the time frame fixed, if the Corporation finds that he is not co-operating.

¶10

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed

¶11

of. No order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall

¶13

stand closed.

¶14

______________________ DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU,J 13.06.2014 v v

K. Yakoob, v. Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Yakoob, v. Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malluru Subhadra, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

B. Balraj s Vs The Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited (B.H.E.L.)

P.v.Subba Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

D. Raja Reddy, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K. Kameshwar Rao Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh

Devarakonda Subba Rao s/o Nageswar Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its