The High Court · 2025

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Depot lr/anager CNT Depot vide proceedings No P3l1(7)2017CNT dt 0710612019 and RM Secunderabad vide appeal proceedings No PAl19(146)2019 Dt 2010212020 and proceedings of review authority No PA/20(34)2020 Dt 1410912020 as bad in taw, illegal, atbittary, to set aside the same and grant consequential benefits treating the interregnum period as on d uty lA NO: 1 OF 20 21 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circrr stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court nr ry be pleased to direct the Respondent to give promotion to petitioner on par w tr petitioner batch mates treating the removal order passed by the DM as null and r, ide > Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. p. VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Ms/ JANAKI REp SRI ANURACi SC FOR TGSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER ! HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO.5199 O] 2O2L ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Miss Janaki, learned counsel representing Sri R, Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Depot Manager CNT Depot vide proceedings No P3/l(7)2Ol7CNT dt 07106/2019 and RIY Secunderabad vide appeal proceedings No PA/1,9G46)2O19 Dt 20/02/2020 and proceedings of review authority No PA/20(34)2020 Dt l4/O9/2O2O as bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, to set aside the same and grant consequential benefits treating the interregnum period as on duty and pass...".

3. When the matter is take uo for hearinq, learned counsel aDDearinq on beha lf of the oetitioner submits that the subiect issue in the pre ent writ oetition is souarelv covered bv the order of this Court dated 3O.12.2O22 passed in W.P. No.15 OO8 and the recent orders of l sN, l wP 5 r99 2021 this Court dated 19 .O7.2O24 oassed in w.P .11o.26724 of 2O19 and the order dated 16.o9.2025 Pa!;! ;ed in W.P. No.1939 of O21 on the basi of the said rrder dated 30.1 2.2022 o ssed in W.P. No.1 5059 of oo8.

4. The Relevant oortion of the order of this; Cou rt dated 30.12 ,2O22 passed in W .P. No. 15 O59 of 2OOti is extracted hereu nd er: "Takrng into consideration the l'.rc l_s and circumstances of the case and also the length r;f services rendered by the petitioner, thts Court deems r fit and proper to modify the quantum of punishment ot, jtoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative el.F tct for a period cf two years. However, it is made clea - t. hat this modification cf punishment shall have prospe,: i.e etfect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the r ronetary beneflts for the period prior to passing of this orr|,,r',.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for.TGRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not disputr: the said submission made by the tearned counsel apoearing on behalf of the petitioner.

6. .In view of the said submissions made by both the learned counsel, the writ petition is parfly tllowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 3O.12.::(r22 passed J SN. J wP_i r99 202 r in W.P. No. 15O59 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-G.JYOTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secrrkoprrcen To, 1 2 e 4 5 6 7 I The Principal Secretary, Transport and R and B Department, Erramanzil' T.S.,Hyderabad. The Eiecutive Director, TSRTC, GHZ, JBS, Secunderabad The Regional IManagerTSRTC, Secunderab-ad- Region JBS Secunderabad The De[ot ManageiTSRTC, CNT Depot JBS_Secunderabad. The Depot lvlanager TSRTC, Maheshwaram Depot RangareddyDistrict, Hyderabad One-CC to One CC to SRl. R. ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC] Two CD Copies P VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUCI -SRl. 6 BM/BSK CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:1 610912025 ORDER WP.No.5199 of 2021 E .) i.q o l/A o O iI t] 20?5 t c l: I,i 'r\';: PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITII] N WITHOUT COSTS 1 HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO /.1.- t W.P.No.15O59 OF 2OO8 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao,. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Starding Counsel for the respondents' Corporation,

2. This writ petitron is hled 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 petitioner's basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, and treating the suspension penod as 'not on duty', as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate and consequently to set aside the Office order No. 02195(27)/99 DVK, dated l1.O2.2OOO passed by lst respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a "Conductor" in the respondents' Corporation. On O 1 .08. 1999 while he was performing his duties en route Devarakonda to Pogil1a, a check was conductcd at Stage No.16 (Pogrlla). During the check, the inspection staff of the Corporation noticed cash and ticket irregulanties. Subsequently, a charge memo dated 01.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 arty reply. Subsequently, the respondents' 2 Corporation had issued charge sheet dated 24.( !) 1999 along *rrn /.? - suspension order stating that the petitioner failecl rr collect ticket farJi' from passengers. The petitioner submittcd explane li )n on 29.O9.19J9 to the above said charge sheet. Later,.the respor (l,rnts' Corporation conducted an enquiry and passed hnal order No r' . 195127)199-DVK, dated 11.O2.2000 by the l"t respondenL imposin i punishment of r,r,ithholding of alnual increment for a period ,r trvo years with cumulative effect and the period of suspensron ir; t eated as 'not on duty'. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred ap;;..r I before the 2'd respondent on O4.O7.2OO7. Latcr the 2nd respo rilent rejected his appeal on 24.Oa.2OO7 as time barred, zrfter lapx;t, of seven years. Again the petitioner filed a Review Petition on 0l (l( 2OO7 before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda and the sarnc \ as rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner velrt n ently contended that the Enquiry Officer without considerin5l he explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, subn itted the enquiry report. He further contended that at the time . I checking, two passengers have given statements that they have no raken tickets and not paid the bus fare. Hence, the ticket fare was ,:, rllected from the passengers by the TTI and also imposed a fine of Rr; 5,)/-. He further contended that other two passengers also have givcil statements that they have boarrded the top of the bus while the bus r.,ir s in slow motion when the sheep cattle was crossing before tht: lus without the 3 knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and they have r'|. + 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 arnounts 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 pu nrshment withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment though the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation while discharging his lawful duties as a Conductor.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents' Corporation after following the due procedure contemplated under the Regulations and a,fter conducting enquiry by duly appointing an Enquiry Officer and that apart considered the explanation of the petitioner as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, impugned order was passed on 11.02.2000; ald as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by 1"t respondent.

6. Havrng regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, apparently, the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the charge sheet for the charges levcllcd against him. The petitioner has emphatically contended that at the time of checking, two I passengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets and not paid the bus fare and other two passengers have also given 4 statements that they have boarded the top of the t'us rvhile the br"-.,): was in slorv motion when the sheep cattle was crc: s ng before the bus' without the knowledge of the petitioner as well ,t:; driYer of the bgs and further stated that they have not paid ticket tr:rr t and collected the tickets from the petitioners. The learned counsc. for the petitioner rightty contended that the respondents' Cc :'lroration without considenng the statements given by the passt:r'r1 ers and without properly considering the explanation submitted b], I',: petitioner to the charge sheet, passed the impugned order agarc. the doctrine of proportionality basing on the report submitted b.,, t: e Enquiry Officer imposed punishment of withholding annual grarl' increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. "he respondents' Corporation has failed to establish that the act cf l re petitioner was intentional in not issuing the tickets to the passenllr''s and he played a fraud to cause colossal hnancial loss to he respondents' Corporation exchequer but it amounts to only neeli lence on the part of the petitroner. In such circumstances, the respor.clents Corporation ought not to have imposed punishment; nar.rt ly, stoppage o[ increments for a period of two years with cumulati,'r effect, which, in the considereri opinion of this Court is a major punisi:mcnt.

7. Taking into consideration of the facts and cl: lmstanccs of the case and also the length of service rendered by t.r. petitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to modi$ the quantrrr-r lf punishment of 5 stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of ). 1 punishment shali have prospective 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 parfly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO Dated: 30.72.2022