Rowthu Nageswara R Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1135189
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJun-19-2013
JudgeNOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
AppellantRowthu Nageswara R
RespondentAndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp
Excerpt:
the hon'ble sr.justice nooty ramamohana rao w.p.no.17313 of 2013 dated 19-06-2013 rowthu nageswara rao....petitioner andhra pradesh state road transport corporation & another.....respondents counsel for the petitioner: smt. n(p).anjana devi counsel for the respondents: smt.k.sarala reddy head note: ?.cases referred writ petition no.17313 of 2013 order: heard smt.k.sarala reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation. the writ petitioner, while working as a driver with the andhra pradesh state road transport corporation (for short, the corporation').was assigned duty on 09.05.2013 to drive the bus bearing registration no.ap29 0088 plying between anakapalli and battili. then, a breath analyzer test was conducted which gave a beep sound indicating that the petitioner was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. the breath analyzer test was conducted in the presence of the service conductor and security sub-inspector of the regional manager's office at visakhapatnam. according to the respondents, the electronic breath analyzer has shown the reading as 72 mg/100 ml. based upon this finding, the respondents are prima facie satisfied that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time when he reported for duty. since he was a driver of a public carrier, he cannot be assigned any such duties as a driver. for the purpose of conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the depot manager considered it appropriate to pass orders through his proceedings, dated 05.06.2013 placing the writ petitioner under suspension. it is this suspension order dated 05.06.2013 which is challenged in this writ petition. learned counsel for the petitioner, smt. n(p).anjana devi would contend that the breath analyzer test is not the final test, which can reveal accurately as to whether a person is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or not. the respondents ought to have referred the petitioner for medical examination if they had suspected that he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. only a medical examination by a competent doctor would have revealed the truth or the lack of it behind the allegation. instead, the respondents have proceeded mechanically in the matter and placed the writ petitioner under suspension unjustly. it is therefore, contended that the order of suspension deserves to be interdicted so as to enable the writ petitioner to continue to function as a driver. i am afraid that the contentions canvassed by the petitioner are meritless. as a routine check, the drivers are bound to be subjected to a breath analyzer test or examination by the respondents. if the electronic machine, which is used for breath analysis, reveals that the individual is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, it is for the individual to seek a further reference to a medical examination. if the respondents have declined to send him to a medical examination, it shall be legitimate and open to any such individual to immediately report to the nearest hospital run by the government or by the apsrtc itself and get the time of his reporting there recorded and then give the blood sample for the purpose of analysis. instead of adopting such a course, the writ petitioner has chosen to challenge the finding of fact on the ground that the electronic machine has not properly recorded the analysis result of his breath. an order of suspension is liable to be interfered with in extremely limited circumstances. one such is where an incompetent authority passes any such order or in rarest of rare cases where the power to place an employee under suspension has been exercised so arbitrarily as to shock the conscience of the court, but seldom such an order can be interfered with by a judicial review court acting as an appellate authority on fact. in the instant case, there is no dispute that the depot manager is the competent authority to place a driver under suspension. further, as to whether the finding by the electronic breath analyzer machine that he is having 72 mg/100 ml. is correct or not is a pure question of fact. if the petitioner seeks to challenge the same, that can be challenged only before an appellate authority. further, the petitioner has not taken any steps promptly and very immediately to get his blood sample analyzed, at a government hospital or the dispensaries/hospitals run by the apsrtc. in the absence of any credible contra material, that the petitioner was not under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at all, it will not be proper for this court to interfere with an order placing him under suspension. there is also a stronger ground for me not to interfere in a case of this nature. a driver of a public carrier has been entrusted with the task of ferrying the passengers or the goods of a public corporation, from one point to the other point safely and carefully. this apart, he shall not pose any risk or danger in the process of performing such duties as a driver to the other road users.therefore, as a public policy, driving motor vehicles while one is under the influence of alcoholic beverages is a forbidden act. when once there is some material available with the depot manager, to suspect that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, the exercise of power placing the writ petitioner under suspension cannot be faulted at all. therefore, from the larger public interest perspective also, the action of the depot manager passes muster and hence, i do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this writ petition and it is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage. no costs. consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand dismissed. ----------------------------------------- nooty ramamohana rao, j1906-2013
Judgment:

THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.17313 of 2013 Dated 19-06-2013 Rowthu Nageswara Rao....Petitioner Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & another.....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt.

N(P).Anjana Devi Counsel for the respondents: Smt.K.Sarala Reddy HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred WRIT PETITION No.17313 of 2013 ORDER

: Heard Smt.K.Sarala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

The writ petitioner, while working as a driver with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the Corporation').was assigned duty on 09.05.2013 to drive the bus bearing Registration No.AP29 0088 plying between Anakapalli and Battili.

Then, a breath analyzer test was conducted which gave a beep sound indicating that the petitioner was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

The breath analyzer test was conducted in the presence of the service conductor and Security Sub-Inspector of the Regional Manager's Office at Visakhapatnam.

According to the respondents, the electronic breath analyzer has shown the reading as 72 mg/100 ml.

Based upon this finding, the respondents are prima facie satisfied that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time when he reported for duty.

Since he was a driver of a public carrier, he cannot be assigned any such duties as a driver.

For the purpose of conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the Depot Manager considered it appropriate to pass orders through his proceedings, dated 05.06.2013 placing the writ petitioner under suspension.

It is this suspension order dated 05.06.2013 which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.

N(P).Anjana Devi would contend that the breath analyzer test is not the final test, which can reveal accurately as to whether a person is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or not.

The respondents ought to have referred the petitioner for medical examination if they had suspected that he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

Only a medical examination by a competent doctor would have revealed the truth or the lack of it behind the allegation.

Instead, the respondents have proceeded mechanically in the matter and placed the writ petitioner under suspension unjustly.

It is therefore, contended that the order of suspension deserves to be interdicted so as to enable the writ petitioner to continue to function as a driver.

I am afraid that the contentions canvassed by the petitioner are meritless.

As a routine check, the drivers are bound to be subjected to a breath analyzer test or examination by the respondents.

If the electronic machine, which is used for breath analysis, reveals that the individual is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, it is for the individual to seek a further reference to a medical examination.

If the respondents have declined to send him to a medical examination, it shall be legitimate and open to any such individual to immediately report to the nearest hospital run by the government or by the APSRTC itself and get the time of his reporting there recorded and then give the blood sample for the purpose of analysis.

Instead of adopting such a course, the writ petitioner has chosen to challenge the finding of fact on the ground that the electronic machine has not properly recorded the analysis result of his breath.

An order of suspension is liable to be interfered with in extremely limited circumstances.

One such is where an incompetent authority passes any such order or in rarest of rare cases where the power to place an employee under suspension has been exercised so arbitrarily as to shock the conscience of the Court, but seldom such an order can be interfered with by a judicial review Court acting as an appellate authority on fact.

In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Depot Manager is the competent authority to place a driver under suspension.

Further, as to whether the finding by the electronic breath analyzer machine that he is having 72 mg/100 ml.

is correct or not is a pure question of fact.

If the petitioner seeks to challenge the same, that can be challenged only before an appellate authority.

Further, the petitioner has not taken any steps promptly and very immediately to get his blood sample analyzed, at a government hospital or the dispensaries/hospitals run by the APSRTC.

In the absence of any credible contra material, that the petitioner was not under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at all, it will not be proper for this Court to interfere with an order placing him under suspension.

There is also a stronger ground for me not to interfere in a case of this nature.

A driver of a public carrier has been entrusted with the task of ferrying the passengers or the goods of a public corporation, from one point to the other point safely and carefully.

This apart, he shall not pose any risk or danger in the process of performing such duties as a driver to the other road useRs.Therefore, as a public policy, driving motor vehicles while one is under the influence of alcoholic beverages is a forbidden act.

When once there is some material available with the Depot Manager, to suspect that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, the exercise of power placing the writ petitioner under suspension cannot be faulted at all.

Therefore, from the larger public interest perspective also, the action of the Depot Manager passes muster and hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this Writ Petition and it is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage.

No costs.

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand dismissed.

----------------------------------------- NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J1906-2013