Put off duty cannot be equated with suspension.

The petitioner, a casual driver, working in the 2nd respondent Corporation (APSRTC), was removed from service on 27.03.2003 on an allegation of certain misconduct on his part. Initially, before taking the eventual step of removing the petitioner from service or disengaging him as he was only a casual employee, the Corporation ‘put him off duty’ for a certain period. In that context, the petitioner filed the present writ petition claiming that he ought to have been paid full wages for the period from 03.05.2002 to 27.03.2003, for which period he had been kept under put off duty, since it is without any regulatory support.

The facts in brief are that on 02.05.2002 while the petitioner was driving the bus of the Corporation, it met with an accident. Initiating departmental proceedings, the Corporation issued a charge sheet on 22.05.2002, apart from putting the petitioner off duty on the said date. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner in response to the charge sheet, the Corporation issued orders of disengagement through proceedings dated 26.12.2002, based on the enquiry report dated 14.12.2002.

Later on 12.03.2003, the respondent Corporation issued further proceedings cancelling or recalling the order of disengagement dated 26.12.2002 on the ground that it had been erroneously given and further issued a show cause notice for the deletion of the petitioner’s name from the approved list. Once again, when the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 25.03.2003, the respondent Corporation, apparently not being satisfied with the explanation, proceeded further and issued the final orders of disengagement on 27.03.2003.

Contending that till there was a disengagement of the petitioner, there existed an employer and employee relationship between the Corporation and the petitioner, i.e., essentially for the period from 03.05.2002 to 27.03.2003, when the petitioner had been under the put off duty, the petitioner claimed full wages for the said period. When his representations yielded no result, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that ‘put off duty’ is not a recognized mode of punishment or suspension under A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963 (‘the Regulations, 1963’). Since the petitioner was prevented from attending duty under the cover of an illegal or void directive, his employer, contended the learned counsel, should pay the wages for the said period - from 03.05.2002 to 25.03.2003. In other words, the petitioner ought to be treated to have been on duty during the said period. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on certain judicial pronouncements of this Court – some reported and some unreported; some by learned Single Judges and some by learned Division Benches. Since all the series of judicial pronouncements of the learned Single Judges got subsumed into those of learned Division Benches, I will examine those judgements of the Division Benches, especially for the reasons mentioned below.

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, in tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation, has submitted that the petitioner was only a daily wage employee, and that even before the Labour Court, he has made a specific claim for full wages for the period of put off duty, but it was expressly denied. He has further contended that it is a well established principle that a daily wage earner would be paid only for the days he was in service and not otherwise. As a matter of alternative submission, the learned Standing Counsel has also stated that put off duty can be likened to suspension of the regular employees pending disciplinary proceedings. On that count too, at best, the petitioner is entitled to have subsistence allowance, as if he were a suspended regular employee. The learned Standing Counsel has a