High Court · 2025

The Regional firlanager, TSRTC, [Vlahabubnagar, Telangana The Divrsional lt/lanager, TSRTC, Mahabubnagar Division Mahabubnagar, Telangana. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Mahabubnagar Depot Mahabubnagar, Telanga n a. ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceeding No.P2l2(03)12019-MBNR' dl27lO5l2O1g, issued by 5th respondent, confirmed by 4th respondent vide proceeding No. 01/19(40)/2019-DVM-MBNR, dt.'14106/2019, confirmed by 3rd respondent vide proceeding No. PA/19(31)19-R.M MBNR, dt.09/07/20'19 and the Mercy appeat proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No PA/19(1 1H) 2O}O-ED (H and K), dl2BtO1l2O21, imposing punishment different of two annual increments with cumulative effect, as illegal, arbitrary and grant to relief to the petrtioner by setting aside the punishment impc sed in the justice interest of Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG (SC FOR Tr; tTC) The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER 6 * {r * # I s * a HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITI ON o.11071 ot 2022 o RDER: Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R'Anurag' learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respo nde nts.

2. The oetitio ner a o oroach ed the Cou see rnq pra ver as under: "...to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the oroceedinq No.P2l2(03)/2019-MBNR, dt 27 /05/2019 issued by Sth respondent confirmed by 4th respondent vide proceeding No. Ot/19(40)/2019- DVM-MBNR, dt L4/o6l2ot9 confirmed bv 3rd respondent vide proceeding No. PA/19(31)19-R'M t4BNR, dt OglOT l2Ol9 and the Mercy appeal proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings r'ro. PA/19(11H) 2020-ED (H&K), dt 28/Or/202r imposing punishment different of two annual increments with cumulative effect as illegal arbitrary and grant to relief to the petitioner by setting aside the punishment imposed in the interest of justice and pass..."

3. When the matter is ta ken uo for h eaflno. earned iti n rs mit n beh lfoft ub e in the resent counsel a t s c ver rde oft Co rt a d 1 30 .L2.2022 0 a ssed irt W.P. No.15O59 of 2( O8 and the recent orders of this Court dated 19.07.20 ! 4 oassed in W.P.No.267 24 of 2019 an d the order dater I16.09.2025 passed in W.P. No.1939 of 2O21 on the bas: af thC_Setd order dated 3O.12.2 22 oass ed in W.P. \ o.1 O59 of

2008. 4 The Relev ant portio n of the order or this Court dated 3O.12.2O22 oassed in W.p. No. 15O5! of 2OO8 is extra cted hereu nder: "Taking into consideration the .,, circumstances of the case and also the { services rendered by the petitioner, this Court fit and proper to modify the quantum of puni,;i stoppage of annual grade increment without , _ effect for a period of two years. However, i clear that this modification of punishrnent :l- prospective effect only from the date of passi-t order and the petitioner shall not be entitlec the monetary benefits for the period prior to 1,, th is orde r". ts and ngth of leerns rt ment of lulairve is nrade all have ; of ihis -o c ,lim ssinq of

5. Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not disp,l;g the said submission made by the learned counsel alr rearing on behalf of the petitioner. \ ) SN, J In view of the said submissions made by both the

6. learned counsel, the wrat petition is partly allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 30.12.2()22 passed in W.P. No. 15O59 of 2OO8' 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. S ,TRUE COPY// -SD/.C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER

1. The Managing Director, And 4 Others, TSRTC, B Telangana. Bhavan, Hyderabad,

2. The Executive Director, TSRTC, H and K ZONE, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Mahabubnagar, Telangana. 4. The Divisional Manager, TSRIC, Mahabubnagar Division Mahabubnagar, Telangana.

5. The Depot [t/anager, TSRTC, Mahabubnagar Depot Mahabubnagar, Telangana.

6. One CC to SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate. IOPUC] T One CC to SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the Order, dated 30-12-2022 in W.P.No.15059 of 2008 to this Court) BSK BS * * T * * t * I HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER WP.No.11071 ot 2022 . . - :--:t. "r I (t 'r C ' i) I t:C M 's a q J .j i_) I I .-i/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETIT I ON WITHOUT COSTS \ i & * ,* & i, 8, * *r * * 1 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO lv.P.No.15O59 OF 2OO8 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkateshrvar Rao. learned counsel lor ttre petitioner and Sri Gaddam Snnivas, iearned Standirrg CounseI for [he respondents' Corporation.

2. This writ petition is hled r-rndcr Articl-^ 226 of Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Manrlamus to dcclare the action of the respondents in imposins tl-re ptrnishrnent of reducLns the peLitioner's basic pay by two incremcntal stafles rvith cumulative effect, and treating the suspension period as .'no[ on duty', as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate ancl consequcntly to set aside the Olllce order No. 02195(271199 DVK. d:rted 11.02.2000 passed by 1"t respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that tl're petitioner was appoillted as a "Conductor'in the respor-rdents Corporalion. On 01.08.1999 rvhilc he was performing his rlnties en route Devar:rkonda to Pogilla, a check was conclucted at Stage No l6 (PogilLa). Dunng the check, thc inspection staff of the Corporation noticcd cash and ticket irregularities. Subsequcntly, a chargc memo dated O1.08.1999 was issued to the petitioner for the aforesaid lapscs. Thereupon the petitioner had submLtted his explanation but the rcspondents' Corporation has not issued any reply. Subsequentl_v, the respondents' 2 Corporatjon had issued charge sheet dated 2'+ 1) , . 1 999 along u'ith suspension order stating that the petitioner faLle(l t r colLtct ticket fare lrom passengers. The petitioner submiltcd expla;Lr ion on 29.O9.I999 to the abor,e said charge sheet. Later, the :esc'r I :l-^nts' Corporation conduclecl an enquiry and passcd fittal ordcr \l ( '21911tt 11',-19 91',6, dated 11.02.2000 by the t" respondent impo:i rq punLshment of u.ithhokiinr, of annual increment for a perio(l rf tso years rr'iLh cllmulative effect and the period of suspension i r treated as 'not on duty'. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred al)l :aL bcfore thc 2"4 respondenf on 04.07.2OO7. Later the 2"d rcsp: rdenr rcjected his appcal cn 21 O8.2OO7 as time barred, atter l, r I e of scven vear s- r\glrin [hc pctitioner filed a Review Petition on 0.. )9.2,.)07 bctbre the Regionai N'larager, APSRTC, Nalgonda and thc sa:L ,"r",as rejec tcd.

4. The iearned counsel lor the petitioner vcr rmerrth, contendcd that the trnquiry Ofhcer without consiclcrir r the cxplan:rrion sl.rbmitted llv the petitioner to the charge sheet. srt ,mirl:(]d lhe enquiry report. Hc further contended that :rt the litr t of cl-tccking, tt,o passcngcrs have given statements that they have :r I Lal(en ticrl(cts ancl r-)ol paid tL're bus fare. Hence, the ticket f.rrc ri ,,r collcctccl [ro[r the passengers by thc TTI and also imposed a fine o i r 50/ He furthr:r contendecl that other two passengers also have q ' en statemenls that they har,c boarded the top of the bus u,hile the btr: ,...,as in slorv motion u,hen the sheep cattle was crossing belore iJL, bus without the / 3 knowledge of the petrtioner as rvell as driver of the bus and they have not paid ticket lare and collecteci the tickers from the petltioner. The above said statemenls ol thc passengers itself would establish that there was no intcntion of misalt propriatio n of an]..lmounrs and the petrtioner has not causcd ar.rv Ioss to the respondcnts' Corporatiolr. The 1.t respondeut !,,,rthout consiciering tht'above said aspects passcd the rmpugned order imposing punrsltrncnt r,vithholding oI two increments with cumulative eflect, which is a major punishment though the petitioner has not committcd any m isap propriatron rvhtlc discharging his lawful duties as a Conductor'.

5. The learned counsel [or thc responclents srrbmits that the respondents' Corporation aftct lollowing the clue procedrLre contemplated under the Regr-rlations and atter <:o[ducting enclurry bv duly appointing an trnquiry Olllcer and that apart considcred the explanation of the petitioner as rvcll as the findings o[ thc Enquiry Officer, impugned order u,as passed on I1.02.2000; and as such, there is no illegality in thc impugrrccl orcier yrassed bv 1., respondent.

6. Having rcgard to the rival contentions and thc material placcd on record, apparently, the petitioncr hzrd submitted his explan;rtron to the charge sheet for the charges levelled against hinr. TI're pctitioner has emphatically contended th.r t at thc tLme of checking, tr,vo passengers have g.iven statements that thc,v have nol taken tickets and not paid the bus fare and other two passengers have also given 4 statements that they- have boarded the top of tht, l rrs rr hile ti-,c bus u,as in slow ntotton when the sheep cattle rvas cro_rs ng br:forc tlte bus rvithout thc knor,vledge of the petitioner as u.ell -L; c-rir,,:r oI thc bus ancl hrrthr.i- st ai('(l that thev have not paid tickct f, L r ,rnC collcr.rl l tl-re lickc [; l-rrrnr thc peIitioncrs. The learned couns,: i,)r .lr,: p1.1.1,1,,,"a righrl.. c'trrlt,ndcd that the respondents' C,r: rorat jorr ii rrhout consiclerirLq lhe statemenls given by the pass,.rr r rs tncl ,,rilhrut properlv r.orrsider rng the explanatiorl submitted by l e perrtioner to the ctrargc shc,rt. passed the impugned order agzLins thr: docrrine of l)roportio nali t)* basing on thc rcport submitted b_r : r: Ertrluiry OIlli:er r,'rposcd ltunislLnrcnt of r,r'ithholding annual grlri I incr(.ntenrs for .r pcriocl of tu o _\ ears rvith cumulative effect. ihe rc-sponc.len ts, eor[)ort]tron lras lailed to r:stablish that the act or hc pr:lrtlorrcr \,,.rs intentional rn not issuing the tickets to the passcl irl, rs an(l he plavr-:d a fl-aud to caLlse colossal tjnancial loss Lo he rcspondents, Corporat ion r.xchr:qucr but it amounts to only nt,g 1 gcncc on LItc I)art ()l thc pelttiorrer ln srrch circnrnstances, the resytorr t,nts.CorporatiOn ought n(rt lo trat,e imposed punishment. nilr.h,, stoplllqc of rncrcrucnls for a period of trvo vears with cumula: r: cffect. rr.,ltich, in thc r:onsirlc-crl opiniol of this Court is a major pul s t.rmelt i. TalirLrg into consider;ition of the facts and (.r r rrrnstances of the r:ase and also the length of servlce rendered by t rc petrtioner. this Oourl de<:ms it lit and proper to modrff the quantl L ] o[ punishnrent of ,., .4.' 5 stoppage of annual grade in(:rcmcnt without cumulative effect for a period of two years. Horvever, ir is macle clear that this modifrcation o[ punishment shall have prospectil'o eflect onlv from thc date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall r:or: be entitled ro r:laim the mor)ctary benefLts for the period pnor to p:rssing ol this ordcr. 8, Suttject to the above nrodification, the writ I)etitlon is pilrtlv allowed accordingly. No ordcr as to costs. Miscellancous petitions, if anv, pcncling rL.i tlris \\,rit l)eutr()n, shall stand closed JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO Datcd: 30. t2.2022 Skt