[ 3304 ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originhl Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT ⁱ

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 8060 OF 2019

Between:

R. Saidulu, S/o. Late Venkaiah, Aged about 50 years, Driver (E-650895), Telangana State Road Transport C-orporation, Kodad Bus Depot, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. , ⁱ

...PETITIONER

AND

I

• 1 The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its ^. tvlanaging "Director, Bus Bhavan, lVlusheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State
• 2 The Regional Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corp^oration, Nalgond'a Region, ai NalgondS, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.
• The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kodad Bus Depot, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. 3

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of tr,landamus declaring that the action of the 3'd respondent herein in imposing the punishment of deferment of the petitioner's annual increment for ^a period of 2 years with cumulative effect is bad arbitrary illegal and against to the principles of natural justice by setting aside the Final Order No. P11209(01)12014- KDD dt.O7-01-2015 of the 3'd respondent herein and consequential Proc. dt. 30- 03-2016 of the 2nd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments with paying deference of arrears.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKATESWAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. RAVI BABU(SC FOR TSRTC)

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.8O6O of2Ol9

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ or order or direction more porticularly one in the noture of Writ of Mondamus decloring that the oction of the 3'd respondent herein in imposing the punishment of deferment of the petitioners onnual increment for o period of 2 years with cumulative effect is bod orbitrory illegal and ogoinst to the principles of natural justice by setting aside the Finol Order No' P1 t2Og(01)/2014'KDD dt.07.01 .2015 of the 3'd respondent herein and consequential Proc. Dt.30.03.2016 of the 2nd respondent herein ond consequently direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments with poying deference of orrears ond Pass. . ."

2. When the matter is taken up lor hearing, Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this w'rit petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15O59 of 2OOB dated 30.12.2022. The operative portion of which reads as under:

I

"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and aLso the length of seruices rendered by the petitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to modifu the quantum of punish.ment of stoppage of annual grade increment tuithout cumulatiue effect for a peiod of two gears. Howeuer, it is made clear that this modification of punishment shall haue prospectiue effect onlg from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetarg benefits for the period pior to passing of this order."

3. The said submission is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-TSRTC.

4. In view of the submission made by both the counsel, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15059 of 2008. No order as to costs.

Misceilaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stald closed.

Sd/. V, KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( \ ,')

,TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1',

• 1 The lvlanaoinq Director, The Telangana State Road ^Transport corporation, Bus Bhavain, -trrlusheerabad, Hyderabad. Telangana State
• 2 ih. n"".""f Vrnaoer, Telan[ana Slate Road-Transport Corp^oration
• 3 N;i";i;C;o;;, ii r',rirsono5. Nalsonda District Telansana state i;'::D;;i Nd;;;; f;i;;q;;" siaie Road rransport corporation' Kodad eJs Debot, Nalgo'nda Distriat, Telanqana State'
• 5;; C"ii;' Sii F-- vlnt<ateswar RaoI Advocate loP^UCl
• One CC to Sri A. Ravi BabulSC for TSRTC) [OPUL;I 4
• fiii;"'s"#th''; ;;'pv "t "tu"'iart ea to.tz'io2z in w'P'No 150ss of 2008) 5 6. Two CD CoPies "ru" .Y

2

HIGH COURT

RRN,J

DATED:1910712024

ORDER

,

WP.No.8060 of 2019

PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

W.P.No.15O59 OF 2008

ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents' Corporation.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of reducing the petitionert basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, ald treating the suspension period as ,not on duty,, as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate and consequently to set aside the Ofhce order No. 02/95(27)/99 DVK, dated tt.O2.2OOO passed by 1st respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed, as ^a "Conductor" in the respondents' Corporation. On 01.0g.i999 while he was performing his duties en route Devarakonda to pogilla, a check was conducted at Stage No. 16 (Pogilla). During the check, the inspection staff of the Corporation noticed cash and ticket irregularities. Subsequently, a charge memo dated O1.O8.1999 was issued to the petitioner for the aforesaid lapses. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted his explanation but the respondents' Corporation has not issued any reply. Subsequently, the respondents'

Corporation had issued charge sheet dated 24'09 1999 along with suspension order stating that the petitioner failed to collect ticket fare from passengers. The petitioner submittecl explanation on 29'O9'7999 to the above said charge sheet. Later, the respondents' Corporation conducted an enquiry and passed final order No 02l95l27l199-DVK' dated 17.02.2000 by the 1* respondent imposing punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and the period of suspension is treated as 'not on duty'. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeerl before the 2"d respondent on O4.O7.2OO7- Later the 2"d respondent rejected his appeal on 24.O8.2OO7 as time barred, after lapse of seven years' Again the petitioner filecl a Review Petition on 01 09 20O7 before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Naigonda and the same was rejected'

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Enquiry Officer without considerlng the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, submittecl the enquiry report. He further contended that at the time of checking, two passengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets and not paid the bus fare. Hence, the ticket fare was collected from the passengers by the TTI and also imposed a fine of Rs 50/- He further contended that other two passengers also have given statements that they have boarded the top of the bus while the bus was in slow motion when the sheep cattle was crossing before the bus without the

knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and they have not paid ticket fare and collected the tickets from the petitioner. The above said statements of the passengers itself would establish that there was no intention of misappropriation of any amounts and the petitioner has not caused any loss to the respondents, Corporation. The 1"t respondent without considering the above said aspects passed the impugned order imposing punishment withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment though the petitioner has not committed any misappropnation while discharging his lawful duties as a Conductor.

respondents' Corporation 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the after following the due procedure contemplated under the Regulations and after conducting enquiry by duly appointing an Enquiry officer and that apart considered the explalation of the petitioner as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, impugned order was passed on 11.02.2OO0; and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by 1"t respondent.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, apparently, the petitioner had submitted his expla,ation to the charge sheet for the charges levelled against him. The petitioner has emphatically contended that at the time of checking, two passengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets and not paid the bus fare and other two passengers have also given

3

statements that they have boarded the top of the bus while the bus wasinslowmotionwhenthesheepcattlewascrossingbeforethebus without the knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and further stated that they have not paid ticket fare and collected the tickets from the petitioners' The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the respondents' Corporation without considering the statements given by the passengers arld without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, passed the impugned order against the doctrine of proportionality basing on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer imposed punishment of withholding annual grade increments for ^a period of two years with cumulative effect' The respondents' Corporation has failed to establish that the act of the petitioner was intentional in not issuing the tickets to the passengers and he played a fraud to cause colossal financial loss to the respondents' Corporation exchequer but it amounts to only negligence ori the part of the petitioner. ln such circumstances' the respondents' Corporation ought not to have imposed punishment; nameiy' stoppage of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect' which' in the considered opinion of this Court is a major punishment'

7. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the length of service rendered by the petitioner' this Court deems it fit and proper to modiry the quantum of punishment of

stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for ^a period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of punishment shall have prospectjve effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order.

8. Subject to the above modification, the writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

Dated: 30.12.2022 skj