P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Petitioner is working as conductor in respondent Corporation. He was assigned duty on the Bus between Huselli to Zaheerabad on 19.12.2016. At about 08.50 hours, a check was conducted at Zaheerabad. During the check, passenger aged about 13 years was found ticket less. Alleging that petitioner indulged in cash and ticket irregularities, he was placed under suspension by order dated 07.01.2017. On the same day, he was also served with the charge memo. Petitioner challenges his suspension form service in this writ petition. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents.

2.1. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that many students going to the school boarded the Bus and when petitioner enquired from the concerned passenger, passenger informed the petitioner that she has Bus pass. In fact, other students also disclosed the availability of bus passes. As petitioner did not doubt the bona fide of the student and since it was a peak school time hour with heavy rush in the bus containing students, petitioner did not verify the availability of the bus pass with this student. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that it was a bona fide mistake. There was no allegation of collecting the fare and not issuing the ticket and, therefore, it cannot be classified as cash and ticket irregularities as ordinarily perceived by the management.

2.2. He would further submit that even assuming that the allegation is true at the most it would amount to minor lapse and therefore, does not warrant suspension. Learned counsel further contended that having found that the passenger did not purchase ticket, she was penalized by collecting 50/-.

2.3. Learned counsel further contended that on similar allegation, departmental proceedings were initiated against Sri G. Anil Kumar, Conductor, but he was not placed under suspension. He would therefore submit that the suspension of petitioner amounts to selective suspension and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.

3.1. Learned standing counsel submits that the allegations levelled against petitioner amounts to cash and ticket irregularity. On account of negligence of the petitioner in verifying the availability of bus pass from the student and not collecting the fare. Corporation was subjected to loss. Only because there was timely inspection of the bus, the passenger travelling without ticket was found and appropriate penal amount was levied. Otherwise, the Corporation would have subjected to loss and, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner amounts to negligence in performing the duties. He, therefore, submitted that there is no illegality in placing the petitioner under suspension.

3.2. With reference to the allegation of selective suspension and discriminative treatment, he would submit that G. Anil Kumar was having good record of service and whatever happened was a solitary instance and therefore, competent authority decided not to suspend him. Moreover, in the case of Anil Kumar, the mistake was noticed within three stages from the stage of boarding of bus by the concerned passenger, whereas in the case of the petitioner, petitioner did not notice that student was not having bus pass even after seven stages. Further petitioner did not have fair record of service. He was visited with punishment on five occasions.

3.3. In support of his contention justifying the suspension, counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.P. Gidroniya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another 1970 (1) SCC 362, decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Department v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126 and decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool district and others v. R.S. Madhubabu, RSI, Kurnool District, Kurnool 2009 (4) ALT 530 (DB).

4. The duties and responsibilities, co