Point of Law: Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of suspension passed by competent authority, particularly when the authorities have got the power under Rule 8 of the APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry. All the aspects have to be gone into by the fact finding authority and the enquiry will disclose the truth and otherwise Hpf the allegations. Further, it is settled preposition of law that suspension pending enquiry cannot be interfered with and the Courts can direct only to conclude and complete the proceedings. In the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal instead of directing the authorities to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent within the time frame, exceeded its limit and over stepped its jurisdiction by directing the authorities that he should be transferred to a far off place, which is impermissible under law and unwarranted. As the task undertaken by the Tribunal is impermissible under law, the order passed by it suffers from various serious legal infirmities and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Telangana State Road Transport Corporation.

2. In these two writ petitions, petitioners are working in Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) and are challenging the charge memos and suspension from service dated 16.01.2021. As the issue involved in these two writ petitions is same, they are disposed of by this common order.

3. Petitioner in W.P.No.2369 of 2021 is working as Assistant Depot Clerk and petitioner in W.P.No.2378 of 2021 is working as Leading Hand in the respondent-Corporation. On 16.01.2021, charge sheets were drawn against the petitioners and on the same day separate orders are passed suspending the petitioners from service. The subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings concern alleged creation of duplicate attendance register of outsourcing persons including the names of five persons as if working as Mechanics, under the control of petitioner in W.P.No.2378 of 2021 and asking the Garage Supervisors concerned to sign in the duplicate attendance register, in collusion with Smt A.Radhika working as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) causing loss to the respondent-Corporation to a tune of Rs.3,03,823/-. As the misconduct alleged is treated as grave, petitioners were suspended, by separate proceedings dated 16.01.2021.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that for no fault of petitioners, they are subjected to disciplinary action and suspended, whereas, the entire misconduct is attributable to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) who was their superior officer and on whose instructions, petitioners have acted as alleged against them. It is the further case of learned counsel for the petitioners that in so far as petitioners are concerned, the allegation is colluding with the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and there is no allegation of misappropriation of funds by them. Therefore, there is no justification to place the petitioners under suspension. It is his further case that preliminary enquiry was conducted, entire material was collected by the disciplinary authority and there is no scope for manipulation of records or influencing the witnesses at this stage nor there is scope of petitioners coming in the way of conducting enquiry, even if they are continued in service. Therefore, there is no justification to place the petitioners under suspension.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the disciplinary action is initiated based on the preliminary report pointing out grave illegalities committed by the petitioners and the Regional Manager is competent to initiate proceedings and suspend the petitioners. There is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities. The allegation of misconduct has to be enquired in the domestic enquiry. If petitioners are aggrieved by suspension from service, they ought to have availed the remedy within the Corporation by submitting representation to the higher authority against suspension.

6. 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

7. On the scope of judicial review on a challenge to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the law is well settled. A brief recapitulation of precedent pronouncements :

7.1 In UNION OF INDIA Vs KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA, (2006) 12 SCC 28 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :

“14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having n