K Naoariu v. The Telanoana state Road Transport- corporation

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P'VENKATESWAR RAO counsel for the Responu"ni.''rvliss JANAKI' REP' FoR sRl R'ANURAG' SC FOR TGSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER .E!! . ,?'-- ryf ,--!rr ,"2 t HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION N 0.5835 ot 2O2L ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counset appearing on behalf of petitaoner 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 3'd respondent herein in imposing the punishment of deferment of petitioner and annual lncrement for a period of two (2) years cumulative etfect is bad arbitrary anc illegal by setting aside the final order No.O1l2(12)/2014-MDCL dt. 19/5/2075 of the 3'd respondent herein and direct the respondents; to restore the deferred increments of the petitioner with proper Rxation by paying the concerned arrears and pass... ".

3. When the matter is taken uo for hearin q, learned counsel aDDeaflno on behalf of the D titioner submits that the subiect issue in the Present writ petitio is sq ua re lv cov red bv the order of this Cou rt dated 30.12. 2022 oa ssed in W.P. No.15O59 of 2 OO8 and the re c nt orders of 2 SN. J wP 5835 2021 this Court dated 19.O7.2 o24 D assed in W.P. No.26724 of 2(JL9 and the order dated L6.O9.2025 Dassed in W.P. No.1939 of 2O2L on the basis of the said order

30.12 .2()22 oassed in W.P . No.15O 59 of 2OO a.

4. The R eleva nt oortion of the rder of t is Court ated 30.L2.2022 assed i W.P. No 1s059 of 2OO8 is extra cted hereu nder: "Taking lnto consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the length of services rendered by the petitioner, thls Court deems it fit and proper to modify the quantum of punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for a period of t*o y"a... However, it ls made clear that this modification of punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitionei- shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order"' 5, Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. In view of the said submissions made by both the 6, learned counsel, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 30'L2'2O22 passed I $ ) : i a ) SNN, J wP 58i5 202 t 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. J* * To, //TRUE COPYII "SD/-C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR S I \ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Managing Director. Telanoana Srafa p^.,.{ T.^ unavan, Musheerabad, {elanOana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus rSRrc, Kushaisuda Bus Depot, Kushaisuda, ' I?:"?:8:l^+lnaser' 3 The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Medchel Bus Depot, Medchet, Hyderabad, T S. 4 One CC to SRt P.VENKATESWAR RAO Advocate [OPUCJ 5 One CC to SRt R ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC IOPUC] 6 Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order dated 30.12.2022, in W.p.No.15059 of 2008) BSR BS i * * * '+ a r 4 d *. + ; *r $ * # HIGH COURT DATED:1610912025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.5835 of 2021 e1o\ Ia 1: -I. * 13 0[I 20ff -,;" z \ n 4':_a.l-liD PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS c I I a 1 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRDENIVAS RAO W.P.No.15O59 OF 2OO8 ORDER: IIeard Sri P. Venkatcshwar Rao, Iearned counsel lor the petrtioner and Sri Gaddam Sri'tivas, Iearned Standir-rg Counsel for the respondents' Corporation.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Manclamus to cleclare the action of the respondents in imposing the punishmenl o[ rerlLrcing the petitioner's basic pay by two incremental stagcs with cumulative effect, and treating the suspension period as 'not on duty', as bad, arbitrary, iltegal, and disproportionate and consequently to set aside the Office order No. 02/9527]r/99 DVK, datcd 11.02.2OOO passed by 1"t respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner rvas appointed as a "Conductor" in the responde nts' Corporation. On 01.08. 1999 while he was performing his duties e,n route, Devarakonda to Pogilla, a check was conducted at Stage No.16 (Pogilla). During thc chcck, the inspection staff of the Corporation noticed cash and ticket rrregularities. Subsequently, a charge memo datecl O 1.08. 1999 lvas issued to the petitioner for the afores:rid lapscs. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted his explanation but the respondents' Corporation has not issued any reply. Subscquently, the rcspondcnts' 2 Corporation had issued charge sheet dated 24.O9.1999 along $,ith suspensiorr rrder stating that the petitioner failed to collect tickel lare lrom passe ngers. The petitioner submitted explanation on 29.O9.)999 to the abovt: said charge shcet. Latcr, the respondents' Corporation conclrrr:Lecl :rn enquiry and passed lLnal order No.02 195(27)/99 DVK, riatcd I l.Oi.2O00 by thr: 1"t respon.lent imposing punishnrr:n1 of rvithholcling of annual iucrement for a period of t$,o ycars \\,itll cumulative ,:11-ect ancl the pcriod of suspension is trealed as 'r-ror ort duty'. 'l hercaftcr, the petitroner prcferred appe:rI bctbre the 2"d rcspon(Lenl on O1.O7.2OO7. Later the 2,rd rcspondent rejected his irpperrl on tl+.OA.2OO7 as time barred, after lapse of sc\ren ye.rrs. Again the r)ctitioncr flled a Rcview Pctition on 01.09.2007 bclorc thc l{cgional Manager, APSRTC, l{algonda and the same !\'as releclecl.

1. The lean-rcd counsel fbr the petitioner vehementlv contcndcd that Lhc t)nquiry Officer without considering thc cxplanation submittcd b:,/ the pctitioner to the charge sheet, submittcd the enquiry rcport. He lurtl-rer contended that at the tirne of checking. trvo passenEaers have givcn sLatcments that they have not lakcr) tickets ancl not paicl the bus fare. Hence, the ticket fare was collccted lionr [he passcngcrs by the TTI and also imposed a hne of Rs.50/-. Ue further contended that olhcr two passengcrs also have given statements that thev have bc,ardecl the top of the bus while the bus we.s in slorv rnotion u'hen the sheep cattle was crossing before the Lrus withouL the 3 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 rvouid establish that there was no intentron of misapproprlation o[:rny amounts and the petitioner has not caused any loss to thc responclcnts, Corporation_ The lst respondent r,vithout considering the above said aspccts passed the impugned order imposing punishment withhokling oI twr.r increments with cumulative effect, rvhich is a major punishment though the petitioner has not comrnittcd any misappropriation rvhile discharging his lawful duties as a Concluctor.

5. 't'he learned counsel for the rcspondents submits that the respondents' Corporation af(er fotLou,ing the due procedure contemplated under the Regulations and after conciucting enquiry b,v duly appointing an Enquiry Ofhcer ancl that apart considercd thc explanation of the petitioner as rvell as the findings of tlre trnquiry Officer, impugned order was passed on 11.02.200O; and as such, there is no itlegality in the impugned order passecl b1. 1"t responderrt.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, apparently, the petitioner had submittcd his explanartion to the charge sheet for the charges levelled against him. .lhc petitioner has emphatically contended that at the timc 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 4 .: statemcnts lhat they have boarded the top of thc bus u,hrle thc bus s,as in slorv motior-r q.hen the shecp cattle was crossing bcfore the bus u'ithout the icnou,lcdqe of the petitioner as u,eil as cinver of the brrs and fi-rrlher ;t.rtcct thitt thcy I'rave not paid ticket farc rrnd coliected tl.ie tici<ets fr-rirn the petitloners. 'll-re learned counsel for thc petrtroncr rrglrtly contenclcd that the resirondents' Corporation $.itlroLlt consiciering thc stat.rments given by the passcnge rs and witlrc-rut properll'considering the explanation submitted by the petltioner lo the charge shr:et, passerl thc impugned order agerinst the doctrinc of proportionalrry basing on the report submitted by tht: Enquiry Ofliccr irnposcd purrishnrcnt of '"r,ithholding annual grade increments for a pcrrorl oI lr{o ve'us with cumulative effect. The responclents' Corporation has failccl to cslablish that the act of thc pctitioncr: was intcntional L r not issuing the tickcts to the passengers and he plal.ed a fratrd Lo caLrsc colossal financial loss to the rcspondcnts' Corporatiorr exchequer but it amounts to only negligence on the p:rrt of the petiticrler. lll such circurnstances, the respondents'Corporation ought not io have imposed punishment; namely, stoppage of increments Ibr a pcr-iod of t\.\,o years with cumulative effcct, q,hich, in thc considcr,:d opinion of this Court is a major punishment.

7. Takinll into considcration of the facts and circtLmstances of tlte case :rnd also the lcngth of service rendered by the petitioner, this Court deems it fit trnd proper to modify the quantum o[ punishmcnt of 5 stoppage of annual grade increment without cltmulative effect for a period of two years. Howcver, it is lnade clear that this rrrodificatio. of punishment shall 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 modihcation, 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