The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No 2 in imposing the modified punishment of reduction of petitioner pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have affected the future increments and treating the period from date of removal to date of reporting is bad' arbitrary' illegal, unjust by setting aside the punishment portion only in procs' No PA/ 19(59y2021-RIU-HR dt'z}l1Ot2O21 of the 2"d respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents not to effect the said punishment Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' P' VENKATESWAR RAO ;;;;iior if're Cortt made the following: ORDER the Respondents: SRI R' ANURAG (Sc FoR TSRrC) -i-',4-.-.P THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETI TION No.1 6086 0 F 2022 ORDER: Heard Sri p.Venkateswara Rao, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC appearing on behatf of the respondents.

2. TheDetitio era Dro che as under: the Cou se kino oraver "...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus Jeclaring that the action of the respondent fifo.Z in lmfo.ing tnu modified punishment oF reduction of -V pu-v--Ov t*o increme-ntal stages for a period of t*o yeu.J,.ihi# shall nave arre(ted the future increments and treating the period from date of removal to date of reporting tro,-"ilit.".y, ll.9:],- rrly.l?y ::!!!s aside the prnirri.Lnt pl.ti- onry rn procs. No.PAl 19(59)/2021-RM-HR dt.28_10_2021 of the Lrlu respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents not to effect the said punistrment'anO pass...,, "

3. When the matte rrs take co ns la n beh It uo for heari no, learn ed eti on r u t b u n over d sen wr rder of this Co passed in W.P. N o.15O59 of 2OO8 a ti n s d 30.12.2 o22 th rec n o ersof 2 SN,J W.P.No.16086 of 2o22 this Court dated L9.O7.2024 Dassed in W.P.No. 26724 of Dassed in W.P 2019 and the order dated 16.O9.2025 No.1939 of 2021 on the basis of the said order dated a. The 3(l. 12.24 22 nass ed in w.P No- Rele ant Do ion of the order of this Court dated o 59 6f 200 1 5

12.20 hereu nder d w.P 1505 f 200 "Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the length of services rendered by the petitioner, this 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 two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of punishment shall have prospectiv€ 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"'

4. Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner' In view of the said submissions made by both the 5. learned counsel, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 30.,-2.2fJ22 passed in w.P. No. 15059 of 2OO8. There shall be no order as to SN,J W.P.No.16086 of 2022 costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. A SD/-A.JAYASREE REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER l I To,

1. The lrrlanaging Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan. Musheerabad, T.S.

2. The Regional l\,4anager, TSRTC, Hyderabad Region, Ir/GBS, Gowliguda,

3. The Depot l\4anager, TSRTC, Rajendranagar Bus Depot, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad,'f.S. Hyderabad,'I.S. Hyderabad

4. The Depot lvianager, TSRTC, Bandlaguda Bus Depot, Bandlaguda, 5. One CC to {lRl. P. VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 6 One CC to SRL R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) IOPUC] 7. Two CD Copies (Along with zr copy of the Order passed in W.P. No.15059/2008, dated 30-12-2022) OBM .a CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:241091202s ORDER WP.No.1608G of 2O2Z o t * f I t TA 13 0[T 2$25 :a C) N * ),1irc! PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS { rcwry' " ''13 1 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO W.P.No.150 59 0F 2008 ORDER: Hearcl Sri P Venkateshu'ar Rao, learncd counsel for the pctitioncr and Sri Gacldam SrinLvas, iearned Standing Counscl for the respondctrts' CorPoration

2. Tl-ris rvrit Petition rs lrlecl under Arlicle 226 o[ Constrtution of of lvlandamus to declare the action of the India secktng a Writ responclents in irnposing thc punishment of rcducing the petitioner's stages with cumulative eflect, arnd basic pav bY trvo incrcmental treating the susPcnsion Pcriod as 'not on dutY', as bad, arbitrary, illegal, iind disproportion:rte ancl cot'rsequently to set aside thc Otfice No. 02 / 95(27)/ 99-DVK, dated i102 2OOO passed bv 1sr re s poncic nt

3. Bricf lacts of the case arc that the petitioncr lvas appointed as a "Conductor" in ihc respondents' CorPoration On OI 08 1999 rvhile he rryas performing his duties en route Devarakonda to Pogilla' a check was cond uctecl at Stage No 1 6 (Pogllla) During the check' the inspectlon staff of the Corporation noticed cash ernd ticket irregularities- Subscqucntly, a charge memo dated O 1'O8 1999 was issued to the petitloner for the aforesaid lapses Thereupon the petitioncr had submitted his explaration but the respondents' Corporation has not i.ssued any reply' Subsequently' the respondents' 2 \*. \ E i.ri Corporation had issuecl r:harqe sheet datecl 24.09.1999 aiong with sr-rspcrrsion orrrer stating that tr.re petitioner fairecr to colrect ticket fare frorn lrassengers. The rretitioncr submitted expianation on,29.Og. jgc)g te the,- abovc said cirargc shcet Later, the responclents, Corporatlon conductr:d an enqulr\ ancl passecl .tir.r:rl orcler Nc.02/95{27)/9<l_DVK. dalr:d 11.02 2OOO bv thc 1., respondent imposrng punLshrnent of .,vithholding ol anrtual incremcnt lor a periocl of tr,r.o _\.e.rrs with cumularti'e effect and thc per ir.rd of suspensiorr i:i treated as ,not duty'- Thereafter, th-- petirioner respondenr on 04.O7 .2OOT. Latcr appe .rl o I 21.O8.2OO t as timc b:rrrcd, AgaiD the pctltioner filecl a Re,,rerv petition o Regional Nlar-rager, ApSRTC, Nalgor-rcla and the Prclcrred api)cal bei)rc the 2,,d the 2,,,1 respondent re-jected hrs :rftcr llllis.- of srtver-r l.carrs n 0l 09.2O07 betbre the or.] sarnrt \{,-as rc.J ected.

4. The lcarnecl counsel lor thc petitioncr velr,lmentl,\. contended that the trnquiry Ofhcer nrthout considering thc explanation submitte.l bv the petilioner to rhe charqe shect, sul:mittecl the encluirv report. I{e further contenclc.l that ar thc time of chcoking, trvo passengers havc given staterrlcnLs thal thc_\, lrave no Laket] tickers and not p:rid the bus fare. Hence, thc tickct larc rvas collectecl liorn Lhe passer)gers bl- thc T-ll and also imposecl :r line of Rs 5U/ -. IIe furthcr contended that othcr tu,o passengcrs arso harr.e gi'en statements thar they have troarded the top of the bus lvhrle the bus q as in sk;rn.. motion when the sheep cattle rvas crossing before the blrs wlthout the 3 knowled.ge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and they have not paicl ticket fare and collected the tickets from the petitioner' The itsclf would establish that above said statements of the passengers there u'as no inlentlon of misappropriatio n of any amounts and the petitioner has not causcd any loss to the rcsPondents' Corporatton The 1., respondent without considering the above said aspects passed withholding of two tl're imprlgnecl orcler imposing punishment incremenls wtth cumulative effect' which is though the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation drschareing his lau'ful dutles as a Conductor' a major Punishment

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the after follorvir-rg the clue procedure respondents' CorPoratloll contemplatecl under the Regr'rlations and after conducting enqurry by duly appointing an trnquiry Officer and that apart considered the trnquiry explanation of the petitioner as rvell as the findings of the Officer, lmpugned order rvas passed on 1102 2000; and as such, thereisnoillegalityinthelmpugnedord.erpassedbyl"trespondent

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed had submitted his exPlanation to on record, apparently, thc petltioncr the charge shcet lor the charges levelled agarnst him that at the time of has e mPhaticallY contended passengers have grven statements that they have not taken tickets and other two passengers have also given not paid the bus fare ald The Pettttoner checking, two .!k . ,r !l,.i?Effi {. ,: 113 !" '" \ li: . 'a: ' \ 4 statements that they have boarc{ed the top of trre bus whire the bus was in slon motion lvhen the sheep cattlc was crc)ssing before the bus u'ithout the knor,i.ledgc of the petitioner as rve[ rs dri'er of the bus and furthcr sratcd that they havc not paid trcket firre:r.ci r:olrected the tickels fi-onl tltc petitioners 'fhe learned coLrns.:l for the petrtloner rightll, contencled tha t respondellts, C]r)rporation lvithoLlt consrdering the statements given b_\- the p.rssengers and without properly :onsrdering the explanation submirted b1. ttre petrrioner to the charqe sheet, passed the irrpugned orcler tigirrrLst the cloctrine of proportionalitv basing on the report submittcd br- thc tjnqLriry Offlcer imposed punishmcnt ol rvithholcling annnaI grad.: rncrentents for ir period ol tr,r'o vears with cumLllativc cffect. The rcspondents, Corporation has failed to establish that the act ol the petttioner was intcntional in not issuing the tickets Lo thc passeng.crs ancl he pta1,3d a lraud ro cause colossal flnancial loss to the respondents, Corporation cxchequer but it amounts to or-rly neglieence on thc part of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the responclents,C()rporatioll ought nor. to have imposed punishnicnt; narrrcly, stoppage of lncrements for a period of trvo,vears u,ith cumulati,"c efi-ect, rvhrch. in the considcred opinion of this Court is er m:rlor punislirnenr

7. Taking into consideration of the facts and cir(.Lt ms tanr:es of thc case and also tl,re length of service rcndered by rtLc petltioner, this Court deerr.s it ftt and proper to modi$r tl.re quantum 01 pllnishment of r' 5 stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years However' it is made clear that this modification of punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passing of thrs order and the petitioner shall not be entltled to claim thc monctary benefrts lor the period prior to passing of this order'

8. Subject to the above nroclillcation' thc writ p(] tltion is partly allor,ved accordingly- No ordcr as to costs Miscellaneous Petitlons, il any, penrling in this lvrit petltion' shall stand closcd. Dated. 30.12.2022 JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO