The High Court · 2025

33.P.Srinivas, S/o. Shivaiah, Aged about 47 years, Driver, E. 801285 TGSRTC, r 34.E.Srinivas, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 55 years, DriVer, E.801305, TGSRTC, 35.A.D.V.Goud, S/o.Anja Goud, Aged about 43 years, Driver, E. 801308, 36.l.M.Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Driver, E.801394, 37.Ch.Chennaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 51 years, Driver, E. 801404, TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS. TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, I\Iedak District, TS. , TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS.

38.S.Kiran, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 45 years, Driver, E. 801424, TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS.

39.Sk. Thajuddin, S/o. Shaik Mohammad, Aged about 52 years, Driver, E. 801715, TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS.

40.Yedul Hussain, S/o.Shapuddin, Aged about 46 years, Driver, E.801719' Driver, E. 80'1798' TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS. -42.years, TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District' TS.

41.R.Thirupathi, S/o. Pochaiah, Aged abou!

42.K.Srinu, S/o. Padmaiah,'Aged about 43 years, Driver, E.801804, TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS. +S.P.Bataiaf', S/o.'P.Jbgaiah, Aged about 44 yearc, Driver, E. 801814' TGSRTC, Medak Bus.Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS. A+.e.bignaian, S/b. Nagaiah, Aged about 42 ye-ars, Driver, E. 801841 , TGSRTC, Medtk Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS.

45.J. Srinivas, S/d. Rajaiah, Aged about 50 years, Driver, E. 801844' TGSRTC' Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS.

46.Ki;il;,-Slo. viitat, Aged about 43 years, Driver, E.801897, TGSRTC, Medak 47.Raia Nbrsaiah, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Aged about 50 years, Driver, E. 801BgB' Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS. TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS.

48.Bheemaiah, Sio. Raiaiah, Aged about 50 years, Driver, E.801906, TGSRTC' Medak Bus Depot, triledak, Medak District, TS.

49.Ramesh, S/o. Naga Bhushanam, Aged about 43 years, Driver, E.801913, TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District, TS' -!. ,..1 'j;t-...r', ;- 50 ,i *&,i#r o'szl

51. */ ,- +'., .f;i+* .. {, AND

1. The Telangan Director, Bus I ra State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Bhavan, Musheerabad, T.S. ,

2. The 3.iThe 4.r,The Department, -Secretariat, Hyderabad, T.S 'rr 1" r:ef,-vr l.,*! | - '*r{ '' Reddy, T.S , Transport ENTS 'k ffi;x ' 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 ,.plelaseO to issue an order or direction or writ, more partiiularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the resporidents in recovering the ,i amourrts from the pretit:oner salaries is bad arbitrary, illegal and against to the .i:.'i{,;'n:i. ,: principles of natural justice by setting aside the Final Orders No.P1 / 535(1)12024- MDK dt.21t12t2024 of the grO lr".pondent herein ,nO lonrequently direct the respondents not to recover any amounts in concerned with the above Final .- i; i l,', Orders and also di to repay the amounts if recovered any to the petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 : i .t Petition under Section 151 CPC praying 'affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High that in the circumstances stated in Cciu rt may be pleased to i i{ irect the respondents to stop the recovery from petitioner: sataries by suspending d the Final Order No.P11535(1 112024-MDK dt.2111212024 iof the 3rd respondent ii "r. '. herein and pass ; i I li' ii. ,s "til :.f i' ITil. c+::ia - .ii" .-. r' a' { .* { a 't:ii't' :, : _..rt, . ,.. i,'i$; :: ', ilt[iil irffi Ir!F;];:rti 1: ,i{?'' " I iI iI la'rl (,an.",,6* -: ,: :;. ! ,i ,--t.,' * ' i: i I i t 1 f ! t ,I I. ,*.r* "..52 ' i I ,' t' .tMD.Ghousuddin,.;S/o..; MD...Kamruddin, Aged about 58 years, . Driver, E. 290949, TGSRTC, Medak Bus Depot, [Vledak, tMedak District, TS. ... RESPONDE NTS/PETITIONERS _ .(,:, The State of ': I by its Principal Secretary, Transport ;${',rlr' :J' ; , T.S. -a k,. , i' i r I f.,] ,l !i ,fi t: L 'i.i ;J...t. RESPO N DE NT/RESPONDE NT I .ri affidavit fil u ,,,'. ,:: ed in the intbiimjord :*-t ,31: i .I, i' .., { Counsel for Gounsel for the C praying that in the circumstances stated in petition, the High Court may be pleased to .OSlZSZSpassed in WP No.8333 of 2O25 : l, .VENKATESWAR RAOI"* l ndent Nob.1"TO 3: SRI U.SHANTHI BUSHAN RAO,'SC .GP FOR TRANSPORT TGSRTC [:frtti ;a,,ffit' #*qffi a,* "rh i The Court made the following: ORDER .. : , i i"- 't i : !,i ,;:' , ii,i' ,t .-i j I \l ,:.i ,i, I l,l ;i .ri t,r..r.;, ;:]f,'!t: ;fi' ,il ,i.; ,.i,1 rl ' $,* l .,ifr$. - fi li r;' . , ll'[ '..ltra, "' ,i'.F ' .*-.., :l ;ll;..tI ,li i { '11 ';: ;J' ''t'l ,f .:. I ;i i:[ t' . r'q i! '.11.i l.\t, -:,lil -:ffi, ,i'.$tt. j?'f$ 'll' i,,J .t.:'i " r ".it.,.r r r- rrr 'r ,''] |:: t ::l ''l .:l I i."; Ir I t" -a, ,, +. -r rlF$ri'. l, t.' ;i t'*i; !,1ii $ . , :tr$tr"+:f${ : *l, i,r' i{: ;; {:i. - .'; ',1 1::t I .7 :i. r r:flk .{ir},h,r .: ; ft,i ' :."1 . i\l ; i ii i. t i i.ti.i I t ,F .i. i i I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to declare the action of the respondents in recovering the amounts from the petitioner salaries is bad arbitrar5r, illegal and against to the principles of natural justice by setting aside the Final Order No.Pl 1535\lll2o24-MDK dt.2l-t2-2o24 of the 3rd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents not to recover any alnounts in concerned with the above Final Orders and also direct to repay the amounts if recovered any to the petitioners ..." 2) Heard Sri P.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri U.Shanthi Bushan Rao, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for respondent No.4. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners sLlbmits that the petitioners are working as drivers in Medak Bus Depot since long time. While so, respondent No.3 has issued a Charge Sheet-cum- Show Cause Notice for Recovery dated 15.07.2024 for recovery of certain amounts by leveling three charges, for which., the petitioners have submitted their explanation. But, without proper consideration of the said explamations, the final order dated PK, J wP_8833*2025

21.12.2024 were issued ordering recovery ci rvagcs for thc period absented for duty, without conducting enquir5, as per the Reg.rlations governing tJre respondent Qorporation i.e. TSRTC Employees (Ccnduct) Regulations, 1963 (in e;ircrt'RTC Regulations'). Learned counsel further submits that issuli.rrce of Charge Sheet- cum-Show Cause Notice for Recovery datcd 15,07.2024 itself is illegal as there is no such procedure in the Rl'C Reguiations. If any irregulality or rnisconduct is committed by the workman, initially a preiimirrary enquiry shall be conducted ernd if any prima facie case is made out therein, a charge sheet should be issued ernd domestic enquiry has to be conducted by giving opportu-nity to the delinquent officer. Thereafter, if the charge is proved in the enquiry, a show cause notice has to be issued. But in the casc of the petitioners, the Charge Sheet-cum-Show Cause Notice were issued contrary to the RTC Regulations and contrary to the judgments of this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the learned counsel coirtcnds that passing of Iinal orders, without conducting the detailed enquiry for effecting recovery, itself is arbitrary, illegal ancl against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this ,/ \ - 3 PK, J wP_8833_2025 Court that the respondents have already effected recovery in eight installments. 4l Per contra, the learned Standing counsel contends that the charge sheet-cum-show cause Notice for Recovery dated L5.O7.2024 lnave been issued to the petitioners with specific charges i.e. (i) obstructing the operation of 44 services (ii) striking duties from 21.06.2024 to 23.06.2024 causing cancellation of 44 services and (iii) violating administrative circulars, for which, the petitioners have submitted their explanation and after consideration the said explanations, the final orders dated 2L.12.2o24 were passecl ordering recovery of wages for the period of unauthorized absence, as per Regulation B (1) of RTC Regulations, which provides for recovery from pay of whole or part of any pecuniarJr loss caused to the Corporation by an employee's negligence or breach of orders. Further, as per Regulation 8 (5), the penalty of recovery from pay of whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the corporation by an employee's negligence or breach of orders may be imposed in addition to any other penalty which may be inflicted in respect of the same act of negligence or breach of orders. Therefore, issuance 4 PK, J wP 8833 202s f of Show Cause Notices dated 15.07..2024 is legal, valid and in accordance with RIC Regulations.

4.1) Learned Standing Counsel further subriri:s that the petitioners resortccl to illcgal strike from 21.06.2024 to 23.06.2O24, which resulted in substantial ioss of revenue to the Corporation and significant irrconvenience to the trave llirrg public, disrupting essential transportation servictrs. Further, the said strike rvas in blatant violation of the RTC P.egulations, particularly Regulations 28 (xii), (xiii), (xvii) , (xviii) and (xxvii) thereof, rvhich explicitly prohibit such actions and outlines thc di.sciplinary :rleasures that can be taken against the ernployees 'who engage in strch misconduct.

4.21 Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as per Circular No.PD-52/2001, <laterl Og.O7.2OOL, whenever an employee resort to illegal strikes/sudclen stoppage of work without due notice or w-ithout reasonable cause, the Officers, rvho are vested with the power to impose penalties, shall initiate disciplinary action against quch employees as per Regulation 28 of thc RTC Regulations duly following the procedurc laid down in Regtrlation 12 of the RTC Regulations and ensure that recovery of any pecuniary loss 5 PK, J wP_8833_2025 including loss of earnings caused to the Corporation must be part of the final order awarding penalty to the concerned. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that under Telangana Essential services Maintenance Act, Lg7L, and as per G.o.Ms.No.16, dated 3o.o5.2o24, issued by secretary to Government, T, R&B (TR.IU Department, Government of Telangana, strikes in TGSRTC for a period of six months w.e.f.0L.06.2o24 are prohibited considering services of the RTC as essential services. Therefore, the respondents are justifred in issuing charge sheet-cum-show cause notice for recovery dated 15.or.2o24 to the petitioners providing them with reasonable opportunity to submit their explanation regarding their participation in illegal strike and the recovery of amounts were effected as per the final order dated 21.12.2024. Hence, the learned Standing counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5) This court has taken note of the submissions mad.e by respective parties and perused the material on record.. 6) As can be seen from the record, admittedly, respond.ent No.3 has issued the charge sheet-cum-show cause notice for recovery 6 PK, J wP_8833_2025 vide Proceedings No.P1l535( ll I 2024-MDK, dated 15.07 .2024, to the petitioners framing the following three charges: CHARGE:1 I For having obstructed the operation of 44 services with a group of drivers in front of depot and shouted slogans criticizing the Depot Authorities without giving any notice and reasonable cause, as a result of which the buses were not operated from 21.06.2024 to 23.06.2024 causing much inconvenience to the traveling public besides loss of revenue to the Corporation to an extent of Rs.23,I7,5211' approximately and recover ttre loss of earnings to an amount of Rs.44,568 l- from you, which constitutes serious mis-conduct under Reg.28(:o<vii) of TGSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963. CHARGB:2 : For having Striking on your duties ftom 2l'06'2024 to 23.06.2024 caused cancellation of 44 services besides defaming the image of the Corpolation and recover the penal wages of seven(7) days from you, which constitutes serious mis-conduct under Reg.28 (xii) of TGSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963' cHARGE:3 : For having violated the Administrative circulars and orders caused huge loss to ttre corporation besidcs inconvenience to the travelling passengers from 21.06.2024 to 23.06.2024, rvhich constitutes serious mis-conduct under REg.28(xvii) of TGSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963." and asked the petitioners to submit their explanation, for which' admittedly, the petiti.oners have submitted their explanations denying the charges. Horvever, respondent No.3 has passed the impugnedproceedingsNo.Pll535(L|/2024-MDK,dated 2L.12.2024, in the form of final order for effecting recovery of an \ 7 tI 7 PK, J wP_8833_2025 amount of Rs.44,5681- in eight installments w.e.f. January, 2025 to August, 2025, without conducting the domestic enquiry, which amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7) Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners also drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the respondent corporation vide No.B.I/39(5116985, dated o2.ol.lgro, to contend that the issuance of charge sheet-cum-show cause notice itself is bad. Relevant portion of the said proceedings is reproduced hereunder: 'The punishing authority should apply his mind when passing ord.ers in the case. He should discuss each charge briefly and give findings specifically on each and every charge. These findings must be communicated to the derinquent employee along with the report of the inquiring authority with copies of the statements, etc., rerating to the enquiry or proceedings. The practice of issuing a "charge sheet-cum-show cause notice, should be discontinued forthwith. In future, after the oral enquiry and/or personal hearing, onry a "show cause Notice, may be issued and that too in cases where it is proposed to award the penalty of reduction in rank or pay, removal or dismissal., (emphasis supplied) 8) In the case on hand, admittedly, the impugned proceedings dated 2t.12.2024 in the form of final orders are issuecl in pursuance to the Charge Sheet-cum_Show Cause Notice for a.i.\l \irt I i I I I i I I I : i 8 PK, J wP_8833_2025 Recovery dated I5.O7.2024, rvhich practice was deprecated by the Corporation itself in its o!vn. proceedings dated 02.01.L97O, referred supra. As the issuance of Charge Sheet-cunr-Shor,v Camse Notice for Recovery dated 15.07.2024 itself cannot be sustained, the resultant impugned final orders dated 21.12.2024 also cannot stand to the scrutiny of this Court and therefore lierble to be set aside. 9) For the afore-mcntioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned Irinal orders No. P 1 / 535( L) / 2O24-MDK, dated 21.12.2024, issued by respondent No.3 against the petitioners are set aside anct the respondents are clirected to refund the amoults recovered. from the petitioners, within a period of eight weeks fronr' the date of receipt of a copy of this order' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition i. ''frr.',:r; ,:i.i ,r ,l) I" H,. .l i I ,:. ..: L: .l'r .j ',. ' *r* :{gl*6irrf fr+I l'r:r,*, .u.ai'l\', ' .i.: : ;ib;i;j i -. I t a i ,t q I .\f I jl,iI. t',Yfti ' i"t l' i I { ,l I t i. t. I t '] :' ,:. ..., .l"f 314 + J c o ,f( a 1 im ru"1 1, * t 'vi) Pa"i'Ct\ '' {rJ+'.* .,: I ,,* ':'' ETITI N n ,- ,.,' : : r :ll, ..:. ,I t . ..j ' 1,... ,,,.11 ' i. ,i ti. I I : ,j 'il ! t: i i{... i:.{,i,:.1 1'r .l' 'li :l 'i i . I i I