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 proceedings passed by the Depot Manager No. P211O712017 DT 28.02.2018 and Rejection proceedings No. c^111912712019 DT 1210912019 and the Review Proceedings No. PN19(52)12O19 Df 2110112020 and the orders passed by the Review Authority as illegal arbitrary against the principles of the natural justice and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with purposes i.e., Seniority, Promotion, PF, Gratuity, Leave and lncrement and back wages for the period of removal and grant all other relief and pass orders sefting aside these proceedings and direct the resl:ndents to take the petitioner for duty. l.A. NO: 'l OF 2021 Petition under Seclion '1 51 CPC praying that in the circunrr tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may 16, pleased to order restoration of petitioner pay duly setting aside the punishment ir toosed immediately till the disposal of this writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 6: SRI B.MAYUR REDtr' , SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER r- l-:':,.: r .,+_. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P ETITION No.1O942 0F 2O2L ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing on behalf of respondents,

2. The Deti tion er aDDroac hed t e Court seeki nq Dravera s under: "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings passed by the Depot Manager No.P2/1O7/20L7, dated 28.02.2018 and rejection proceedings No.Ot/ t9/21/2019, dated 12.09.2019 and the Review Proceedings No. pA/Lg(52)l2Ot9, dated 2t.O7.2O2O and the orders passed by the Review Authority as illegal. arbitrary against the principles of the natural justice and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with purposes i.e. Seniority, Promotion, pF, Gratuity, Leave and Increment and back wages for the period of removal and grant all other relief and pass orders setting aside these proceedings and direct the respondents to take the petitioner for duty and pass such other order or orders,,. 2 5 N,l tp 10942'202r d

3. When the matter is taken uo for heari rq, learned laooearin on behalf of the Detitio ner S rbmits that the s biect issue in the oresent writ Detitior is so arelv dbv the order of this cou rt dated 30.12. 422 passed in W.P . No.15059 of 2OO8 and the recent lllhrs-Qo-u-rt 19 .o7.2024 Dassed in W.P. No.26724 ot ! )19 and the order dated 16.09.2025 oassed i n W.P. N .193 of 202l on the asis of the said order dated 30.12.20 22 o.! sed in W.P. c No.t5 f 200 The Rel the orda r of thi - Eourt dated 4 ^f 3O.L2.2O22 oassed in W.P. No. 1so59 of 2OO8 _ s extracted ntn rtio n hereunder "Taking into consideration the fit' circumstances of the case and also the l' services rendered by the petitioner, this Courl fit and proper to modify the quantum of puni; stoppage of annual grade increment without cL effect for a period of two years. However. it clear that this modification of punishment :,1 prospective effect only from the date of pass r order and the petitioner shall not be entitle(i the monetary benefits for the period prior tcr : this order". t; and rrgth of leems it rnent of -nu la tive is made all have g of th is to cla im rssing of Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC, a:pearing on 5. behatf of the respondents does not disprr e the said 3 SN,J wp _10942_202t submission made by the learned counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioner.

6. In view of the said submissions made by both the learned counsel on record, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 30,12.2022 passed in W.P, No. 15059 of 2OO8. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petitio.n shall also.stand closed. A That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above wi(ness The Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this Monday' the Sixth Day of October, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. SD/. H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR SISTANT REG]S //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Transport & R Hyderabad, State of Telangana. B epartment, Erramanzil,

2. The Managing Director, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan' Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, MBNR Region, MBNR District' Telangana' 4. The Divisional Manager, TSRTC, MBNR Division, MBNR District, Telangana' 5. The Depot Manager TSRTC, MBNR Depot, MBNR District, Telangana. 6. The Depot Manager TSRTC, Narayanpet Depot tvlBNR District' Telangana' 7. One CC to SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO' Advocate IOPUC] 8. One CC to SRI B.MAYUR REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC [oPUCl 9. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

10. Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order dated 30.12.2022, in W.P.No.15059 of 2008) BSR Yy GJP CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012025 t. ORDER WP.No.10942 ot 2021 f ;iA IF H1 t o L) 1 7 p)R 2026 c) Jh t t) t t(.tr, f ,.:: 'r;-- t'- ,' ". . PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIC N, WITHOUT COSTS P ""--"X(. ?.., 1 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO W.P.No.15059 OF 2OO8 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the responden ts' Corporation.

2. This writ petition is filed 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 period as 'not on duty', as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate and consequently to set aside the Offrce order No. 02/95(271199-DVK, dated ll.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.O8.1999 while he was performing his duties en route Devarakonda to Pogilla, a check was conducted at Stage No. 16 (Pogilla). During the check, the inspection staff of the Corporation noticed cash and ticket irregularities. Subsequently, a charge memo dated O1.08.1999 was issued to the petitioner for the aforesaid lapses. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted his explanation but the respondents' Corporation has not issued any reply. Subsequently, the respondents' l 1 l 2 Corporation had issued charge sheet dated 24.C<. .1999 along with suspension order stating that the petitioner failed ' r ,:oilect ticket fare from passengers. The petitioner submitted explane 1 c,n on 29.09.1999 to the above said charge sheet. Later, the resporL, ernts'Corporation conducted an enquiry and passed hnal order No. ) ).l9s(271/ee-DvK, dated 1|.O2.2OOO by the l't respondent impos I g punishment ol withholding of annual increment for a period r I two years with cumulatir.e effect and the period of suspension is reated as 'not on duty'. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appt rl before the 2"d respondent ot O4.O7 .2OO7. Later the 2"d respr,t clent rejected his appeal on 24.O8.2OO7 as time barred, after lap s : of seven years. Again the petitioner filed a Review Petition on O t.( 9 .2OO7 before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda and the sam: vras rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehr rrently contended that the Enquiry Ofhcer without considerinSl the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, suL nitted the enquiry report. He further contended that at the timt: of checking, two passengers have given statements that they have nr taken tickets and not paid the bus fare. Hence, the ticket fare war; :ollected from the passengers by the TTI and also imposed a fine of Rs 50/-. He further contended that other two passengers also have givr rr statements thal they have boarded the top of the bus while the bus ' ,as in slon, motion when the sheep cattle was crossing before tl'rrr bus without the 3 knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and they have I 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 amounts and the petitioner has not caused any loss to the respondents, Corporation. The lst respondent without considering the above said aspects passed the impugned order imposing punishment 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 after conducting enquiry by duly appointing an Enquiry Ofhcer and that apart considered the eiplanation of the petitioner as well as the hndings of the Enquiry Officer, impugned order was passed on ll.O2.2OOO; and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by lsr responden[.

6. Having 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 levelled against him. The petitioner has emphatically contended that at the time of checking, tu,o passengers have given statements that they have no[ taken tickets and not paid the bus fare and other two passengers have also given r\ statements that they have boarded the top of the rus while the bus 4 was in slow motion when the sheep cattle was cross ng before the bus without the knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and further stated that they have not paid ticket fa: and collected the tickets from the peti[ioners. The learned counsel fbr the petitioner rightly contended that the respondents' CcI loration without considering lhe statements given by the passel y:rs and without properly considering the explanation submitted by .-l e petitioner to the charge sheet, passed the impugned order agairr t the doctrine of proportionality basing on the report submitted by't re Enquiry Ofhcer imposed punishment of withholding annual grade rncrements for a period o[ two years with cumulative effect. Ihe respondents' Corporation has failed to establish that the act ol he petitioner was intentional in not issuing the tickets to the passerl _1 rrs and he played a. fraud to cause colossal hnancial loss to the respondents' Corporation exchequer but it amounts to only negll gence on the part of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respo:r lents' Corporation ought not to have imposed punishment; na:: ely, stoppage of increments for a period of two years with cumulatL' e effect, which, in the considered opinion of this Court is a major punir hment.

7. Taking into consideration of the facts and cir :rrmstances of the case and also the length of service rendered by t re petitioner, this Court deems it I'it and proper to modify the quantlr-r of punishment of 5 stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modihcation 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 monelary benellts for the period prior to passing of this order.

8. Subject to the above modification, the writ petition IS partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petirion, shall stand closed WSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO Dated: 3O.12.2022