K.Sujatha v. '1. The Telangana State Road Tiansport Corporation

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to add two increments and PF, Gratuity, Leave, lncrement, promotion including seniority to the petitioner and other service attendant benefits by suspending the proceeding No PA/586 (324)12017 - HR dated

20.11.2017 of 2nd respondent pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.JAGAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.VASUDEVA REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPANA WRIT PETITION No. 3754 OF 2018 ORDER: , Chatlenge in this Writ Petition is to the proceedings d.ated 20.11.2O17 of the 2"d respondent insofar as imposing the punishment of deferment of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the period from removal to reporting to duty as 'not on duty'for all purposes.

2. The facts of the case, as could be seen from the material on record, are that, 'petitioner, while conducting bus bearing Registration No. AP 28 Z 2385 of the State-owned Corporation, on 07.01.2017, was booked on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities. Consequently, she was charge- sheeted on 2O.Ol.2Ol7 and was plac6d under suspension. Not convinced with the explanation offered by her, domestic enquiry was conducted wherein charges were held proved. The Depot Manager, Hayathnagar, the 4ft respondent had passed removal order dated 12.O7.2O17, which was appealed unsuccessfully. In the review preferred by petitioner, Revisiona-l Authority observed that it is the primary duty of the sen'ice conductor to collect requisite fare and issue valid tickets to the passengers duly obserrring whether passengers alighted at the intended stage as 2 per ticket fzrre given to him, if not, to ensure that passenger should tra'"'el further destination on purchasing proper ticket. If, she had no fraudulent intention, she should herve issued the tictet immediately when the passenger boarding the bus at Panama Godown or she should have confirmed the alighting passengers at Panama Godown stage and immediately issued proper ticket if any passenger wants to go further travel from Panama Godown, but petitioner failed to do so and issued ticket to the allege<1 passenger at NGO's Colony on seeing the checking offrcials in spite of boarding the passenger at Panama Godown. Further, as per the charge memo, check took place at 08.54 hours and as per ticket report, she issued ticket to the alleged passenger a1 08.54 hours, which clearly proved that she issued ticket to the alleged passenger on seeing the checking oflicials and this is the serious misconduct on the part of petitioner. The Authority further observed that had the chr:ck was not exercised, she would have caused loss of legitimate revenue to the Corporation, hence, she is guilty of the charge. However, this being the 1 "t removal in her I l-year service, the Reviewing Authority thought it appropriate to continue her in service. Thus holding, ordered petitioner's reinstatement into service as conductor duly imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years which shall have its 3 own effect on her future increments; the period from the date of removal till date of her reporting for dut5r at the unit posted on reinstatement should be treated as 'not on duty'fqr all purposes v7z. PF, gratuity, leave, increment, promotion, including seniorit5r,

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri A. Jagan submits that the passenger is at fault and the sarne was admitted by the checking officials before the Enquiry Oflicer and that the Enquiry Offrcer without examining the passenger in question held that charges were proved against petitioner. According to learned counsel, the review authorify, while ordering reinstatement, ought to have considered granting all other service benefits.

4. [,earned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri N. Vasudev Reddy, based on the averments in counter, submits that there are contradictions among the explanations submitted by petitioner to the charge memo, charge sheet, show cause notice and during the course of detailed enquiry. It is submitted that petitioner herself stated that she issued tickets just before the check took place and she was tensed on sighting the TTIs., therefore, she requested the checking oflicials to drop all further proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel submits that 4 tl:e 2.d respondent had already taken a lenient view and directed reinstatement of petitioner ald imposed the subject punishment. hence, further sympathy is not warranted in this case.

5. Petitioner was charged primarily for having issued ticket to a passenger on seeing the TTIs., for which she was removed from service by the 3.d respondent uide order dated 1,2.O7.2017. The Appeal preferred thereagainst was also turned down by the Divisional Manager by proceedings dated

26.09 .2017 . In the review petition, the 2"d respondent considering the fact that this being the l"t removal in 11-year service of petitioner to the Corporation, took lenient view on humanitarian grounds and gave her an opportuniry to continue in service, but imposing the punishrnent of deferment of annr.ral increment for two years with cumulative effect. Though learned Standing Counsel submits that no further lenience is warranted and there are contradictions in her statements, this Court taking into consideration the averments made by petitioner that Enquiry Offrcer did not examine the passenger to elicit the truth and that the statement of petitioner before Enquiry Officer that he issued ticket to the passenger up to Panama but travelled up to NGOs. Colony and the same was admitted by the checking .r:r 5 officials, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the subject punishment is modihed.

6. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of imposing the punishment of annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Rest of the punishment shall be read as it is. No costs 7 Consequently, the miscellaleous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. JAYASREE ^"''_'1:l-tF:zi- / SECTIOIT OFFICER To, 1 The. Managing - Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. The.Regional Manager, TSRTC, TSRTC Hyderabad, Region, Hyderabad District. The Divisional Manager, TSRTC, Hayathnagar Division, Hyderabad The Depot Manager, Hayathnagar I Depot, Hayathnagar Hyderabad District. One CC to SRI A.JAGAN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.VASUDEVA REDDY, SC for TSRTC tOpUCl Two CD Copies 2 3 4 5 6 7 BSR MP \q- HIGH COURT DATED: 2210112025 ORDER WP.No.3754 of 2018 ,\ ( -) o o -_,.:r-:=* i li i f I ' e 6 {,' 11 ilAn m6 ,t:g o416,-r'-! \ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ."{dR w-ffi