A public employer must follow due process, such as issuing a charge memo or suspension order, before denying a driver the right to continue performing their duties based on allegations of negligence.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to resume duty as driver based on his representation dated 30.01.2026.

2. The petitioner has been working as driver in the respondent Corporation since 2010. While he was on duty on 15.01.2026, a passerby allegedly sustained injuries due to the opening of the luggage door of the bus. According to the petitioner, there is no material evidence to support the allegation, no negligence has been attributed to him and his name was not included in the FIR. However, from 17.01.2026 onwards, he was not assigned duty without any suspension order, charge memo or any written communication. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.01.2026 seeking permission to resume duty as driver. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on records.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the responders are directed to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 30.01.2026 with regard to permitting him to resume duty as driver and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.