Heard Sri v. Narasimha Goud

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thd High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the order of removal from service passed in Proc. No. 011292(2)117 -NZB-Z, dated 26082017, and 3rd respondent Proc. No. PN19(40)/17-DVM.NZB, daled 29.11.2017 in so far as deferring (2) increments permanent besides treating the removal period as not on duty for all purpose as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Proc. No. PA/19(13)/2018-RM.NZB, dated 15.02.2018 as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently, the petitioner pray this Honorable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments besides treating the removal period as on duty for all purposes along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. I t I I ! lA NO: 2 OF 201S Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to defer the increments as directed by the 3rd respondent in his order daled 29.11.2017 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of .iustice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER -) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.21O8 of 2Ol9 ORDER: Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Anurag, iearned Standing Counsel for the respondents-TSRTC.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the respondents' corporation as driver in February, 2Ol2 and his servlce was regularized w.e.f. O 1.09 .2014 and while he was working under the control of the respondent No.4, he was suspended from service and charged rvith foliowing charge uide common proceedings, dated 0 I .06.20 17 'For having drir.en the bus No.AP 252 OOa3 in rash and negligent manner with lack of anticipation and dashed the Honda Active bearing No.TSO2EM8O29 coming in opposite direction while the bus was overtaking the sand lorry (turned right to Venkatapur village) at about 17.20 hours on I4.O5.2O17 nea:. Gumlampur X Road V. Venkatapurchowrasta on route Warangal-Nizamabad while performing 06.2O hours Waralgal service resulted in the rider of Honda Activa Sri Umar S/o. Sri Meer Zaheed Ali aged 20 years died I 2 on the spot and other pillion riders sustained injuries rvhich constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (i-t) (a) & (:crlx) of TSRTC, Employees (conduct) Rcg. 1963."

3. Aggrieved by the above said charge memo, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, who in turn passed an order, dated 29.11.2017 reinstating him into service by imposing the following punishments: "Deferred annual increments next fall due for a perioci of two years which shall have effect on future increments with cumulative effect and the period between date of removal and date of reinstatement into service shall be treated as not on duty for all purposes." 4". It is lur-ther averred that the petitioner preferred a revision petition before respondent No.2 and the said revision rvas rejected uide, order dated 15.02.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the above incident took place due to careless riding of motor cycle rider and taking disciplinarv action against the petitioner by respondent 2 3 No.4 is against the principles of natural justice ald a-lso stated that the Superintendent (T), who made spot inspection, has submitted a repori in r,vhich he has categorically stated that the incident occurred due to fault of motor cycle rider as he himself dashed the bus by overtaking lorry and without considering the above facts, respondent No.4 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for the accident u.hi1e submitting the Joint Accident Committee report dated 24.05.2O 17 along r.r,ith another Depot Manager before issuing the charge sheet. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 was biased against the petitioner and imposed tlye punishment of removal lrom service. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has a,lso filed a memo to that extent. It is further stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not take into consideration of the spot inspection report, evidence of the petitioner as u'e1l as the service conductor given in the enquiry and thus stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have committed an error in ignoring the valid evidence. He further stated that during the removal period he rvas remained un- l I I t 1 I i I I I I I I I I I i i I I I ( 4 emplovee as h e u,as pursuing the departmental remedies and in vie'; of the punishment imposed he lost two incremen'-s '"vith cumulative e'ffect and if the suspension pe^ i , d is not treated as 'dutv period' he r,r,ould sustain loss in future increments and thus pra!'ed to allow the present writ petition.

6. In a counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the fatal accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner rvhich resultr:d death of the rider of two-wheeler. The respondent corporation r.r,ilI not only be burdened r,r,ith payment of compensatiorl to the legal heirs of the deceased.but also pay u.ages arrd arrears of increments if the punishment is set aside. It is submitted that respcndent No.3 showed sympathy and imposed a lesser punishment of deferment of annual increments but the disciplinary authority imposed appropriate punishment of removal from service for proved misconduct of causing death of ricier of a two-wheeler ald therefore stated that petitioner cannot be reu'arded for the loss of life and left without imposing any punishment and thus prayed to dismiss the present writ petition on devoid of merits. 5 7 . A perusal of the spot in spection report submitted by the Superint-endent (T), it is made clear tl-rat there is no negligence on the part of the petirir.'nr - arld it also clearly indicates that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the motor bike and respondent No.4 without considering the said report charged the petitioner by deferring two annual increments and one more increment due to treating the removal period as not on duty However, in a counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the respondent corporation will not only be burdened with payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased but also pay lr'ages and arrears of increments if the punishment is set aside and also stated that that respondent No.3 showed s_ympathy and imposed a lesser punishment of deferment of annual increments but the disciplinary authority imposed appropriate punishment of removal from service for proved misconduct of causing death of rider of a tu'o-whee1er. However, in the inspection report it is reflected that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner for causing the accident and considering the said report, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the deferment of annual l 6 increments but period of lemoval of the petitioner will be treated as not on (1 u t\'.

8. In thc rr:sult, the writ petition is disposed .,1 a;,d respondents are directecl to release the annual increments which were deferred with cumr-rlatrve effect to the petitioner but the period of removal of the petitioner rvill be treated as not on duty. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPYil . Sd/.A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Managrng Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus ^ tshav_an. Musheerabad, Hyderlbad. 2. The Reqionat Manager, f_SniC, fl-iiamabad Region, Nizamabad. i ri: BI,tiilX #ffiffiffi,gffi ;r;_;,IH,r#:*:*.

5. The Depot Mana6er - 6. One CC ro SRt V:N, M/l ffi33rosRrRAr PSK/DL I HIGH GOURT DATED:0910712025 ORDER WP.No.2108 of 2019 ,.{ E STA H .* 2 [ iAl.t 2t2t t I ? DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS La) "4\yK ,y- _-1