P. NAVEEN RAO, J.

1. Petitioner is working as Asst. Depot Clerk in the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC). In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging charge-sheet dated 6.6.2018 and suspension from service dated 6.6.2018.

2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy and Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

3. According to learned Counsel for petitioner, a false allegation is levelled against him and based on the said false allegation disciplinary proceedings are initiated and he is suspended only to harass and humiliate him. There are contradictions in the allegations as reflected in the English version of charge memo and translated to Telugu. On the crucial day, petitioner received cash of Rs. 3,78,979/- from bus conductors and entire cash was kept in the locker and locked in the presence of Head Constable. Head Constable also locked the locker with another key kept with him. Thus, the entire amount received by the petitioner was already credited. Whereas, based on false statement of Head Constable, arrayed as 3rd respondent, allegation is levelled against him. By referring to bank transactions carried out on the relevant date he would submit that the entire amount received by him and kept in the locker was credited to the account of the respondent-Corporation and there is no short fall in cash. Therefore, on the face of it there is no truth in the allegation that Rs. 88,400/- was found short and therefore would amount to theft of cash. It is also false to allege that petitioner made contradictory statements. He would further submit that based on this false allegation there was no justification to place him under suspension. In any case, the issue for consideration in the disciplinary proceedings is based on material on record and therefore there is no justification to place him under suspension.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Corporation, justifies the disciplinary action initiated against petitioner. Reading of the charge memo would show that the entire amount received by him was not kept in the locker, therefore same amounts to theft of cash belonged to respondent-Corporation. As the allegation is grave, the employee is liable to be suspended, pending enquiry and therefore suspension is valid.

5. Two issues fall for consideration in this writ petition:

(1) Whether Court can interfere in disciplinary proceedings at the stage of charge memo?

(2) Whether suspension from service is justified?

Issue No. 1

6A. On the scope of judicial review on a challenge to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the law is well settled.

6B. In Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, the employee challenged the charge memo dated 23.12.2003. In the said charge memo, it was alleged that the employee claimed reservation against ST roster point in the promotional post, though he did not belong to said category. Instead of replying to the aforesaid charge, the employee filed O.A., before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of O.A. directing the employee to submit his reply to the charge memo. Instead of filing reply, he filed writ petition before the High Court and High Court allowed the writ petition. The Union of India preferred appeal before the Supreme Court.

6C. On review of the precedent decisions, Supreme Court held as under:

"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331 : Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467; Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, (2001) 10 SCC 639 : State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943, etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-