Heard Sri v. Narasimha Goud'

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents No '1 to 3 to promote the petitioner to one of the posts of (2) unfired post of ADC/controrer pending disposar of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counset for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Sit U.iier.rftrr BHUSHAN RAO, The court made the foilowing: oRDER sc FoR TGSRTC THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.121 o5 of2025 ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction of thc respondents in promoting the petitioner as Controller/ADC on par with the unofhcial respondents' who were promoted vide proceedings dated 04 'O4 '2025' the present writ petition is frled.

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud' learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao' learned Standirrg Counsel' appearing on behalf of respondent Nos l to 3' The petitioner herein is only claiming promotion on par with the unofhcial respondent Nos'4 to 17 ancl he is not challenging their promotions whatsoever' As such' since no prejudice would be caused to the unofflcial respondents' this matter is taken up for disposal without issuing any notice to them'

3. joined the services Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ol respondent Corporation as a Conductor during after un<lergoing due process of selection December, 1990, Subsequently, his services were t'egularizrd' w'e'f'' 31'12'1991 While respond.ent No.3 hacl called for records of the Conductors and Drivers eligible for promotion to the post of ADC/Controller' purely on SO, 1 2 PI{, J W.P.No.12105 of 2O2S the basis of seniority in the feeder cadre. Thercafter, a list of a1l eligible candidates .rvas prepared yicle proc.No.p 3 /2SS(2) /2O24.RM:MR dated 02.O4.2025, wherein, out of the (21) individuals, the petitioner,s name was shown at Sl.No.2, and all the individuals were called for interview on 04.04.2025 at 1i:00 AM Accordingly, thc petitioner attended the interview ancl was selected. Thereafter, respr.rndent No.3 issued the office order daLed 04.O4.2O2S, promoting only (19) individuals, including (15) Conductors and (4) Drivers, as ADC/ Controllers. However-. the petitioner's name was not included in the said list in spite of his seniority and eligibility. Therefore, the said action of respondent No.3 is highly illegal and arbitrary. 4 It is submitted that upon enquiry, the petitioner was informed that he was not promoted due to the pendenclr of disciplinary proceedings pursuant to charge sheet dated 20.I2.2O24, which pertain to the incidents occurred on O9.O9.2O22 a:rld 25.Og.2O23. In response, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 2a.D.2024, denying the charges. However, no final orders were passed thcrein, much less, imposition of a punishment. As such, since the petitioner is maintaining a clean service without any punishments, preceding one year to ttre date of selection, i.e., 04.O4.2025, in view of the instructions issued in Circular No.pD_10/2014 dated 06.03.2014 issued by i I ,t I i i I i I PK, J W.P.No.121OS of 2025 respondent No. 1, he is fully eligible for promotion to the post of ADC/Controller. Therefore, the petitioner submitted his representation to the office of respondent No. 1 on 07 .O4.2O25, which was dul5, lorwarded to respondent No.2, who in Lurn, called lor a report from respondent No.3. However, no report has been sent to respondent No.2 only with an oblique motive to deprive the petitioner of his rightful promotion. It is submitted that the petitioner made another represenfation to respondent No.3 on 12.04.2025, secking promotion, as the pendency of disciplinary proceedings has nothing to do with the promotion post. However, despite acknowledging the receipt of the said representation, no action has been laken so far.

5. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 had earlier issued proceedings dated O2.O2.2O25, calling for records of (1 6) Conductors and (5) Drivers, thereby, intending to hli up (21) posts of ADC/Controller by way of promotion from the feeder category. However, only (19) individuals were given promotion as ADC/ Controllers, ald the remaining (2) posts are left unhlled, rvhich were supposed to be hlled in by the petitioner and one Md. A. Pasha, Driver, who failed to appear before the Selection Cornmittee on O4.O4.2O25, for interview. It is further submitted that the respondents themselves had issued orders vide Proc.No.E21255(2112O24-HZ clated 26.06.2025, promoting one --w\- -+1 \1 \ 4 PK, J W.P.No.121O5 of 2025 Mr. N. Ramakistaiah, Junior Assistant (F), (E.No.251317) as Senior Assistant (F), i, spitc of pendency of disciplinary proceeclings initiated against him vide charge Shcet dated 20.12.2024. As such, the respondents caonot take different staads in cascs of different individuals and they cannot deny promotion to thc pelitioner on the ground of pendency of disciptinzuy proceedings. Therefore, the action of the respondents denying promotion to the petitioner, rvhilc promoting the unofhcial respondent Nos.4 to 17, who are juniors to him, is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discrimi,atory, and in violation of ,{rticles 14, 16 and 21 of the Conslitution of India as well as the Circular dated 06.03.2014. Hence, it is prayed to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Selection Committee for promotion to the post of ADC/Controller from the feeder category and he was placed at S1.No.2 in the empanelled list. However, in view of pendency of serious disciplinar5r proceedings, his promotion has bee, rightly deferred. It is submitted that the said disciplinary proceedings relate to mala fi.d.e and, serious misconduct, having involved in unauthorized processing of sanctioned AMBF amount and concealment of facts, leading to a dua,l claim of employment under the Medicaj Invalidation Scheme. A Charge I I ; i I I I I I wt; "/ .a ,:,, r IIl I 't i i j l L I I i I I 1 I i I I I I I { i I I I i t I I I t i I I I I I I I 5 PK, J W.P.No 121O5 of 2025 Sheet dated submitted bY

20.12.2024 was issued, but since the explanation the petitioner oo 28 '12'2024 was unsatisfactory' a domestic enqulry was ordered, which is underway' It is furlher submitted that as per Clause VI of the Circular dated 06'O3'2014' employees undergoing disciplinary proceedings for serious misconduct are ineligible for promotion' until exoneration' As such' the ccntention of the petitioner that the departmental proceedings should not bar his promotion is contrary to the service jurisprudence and the Conduct Reguiations of the respondent Corporation' Therefore' the respondents are justihed in denying promotion to the petitioner' Hence' it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition' 'l'his Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the 'l . learned counsel for respective parties' A perusal of record discloses that respondent No'3 has prepared a 8. list of all eligible candidates for promotion as ADC/Controller' vide Proc.No.P3/255(2)/2O24-RM:MR dated 0204'2025' wherein' the petitioner was empanelled at Sl'No 2' and he duly attended the interview conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee on 04 '04 '2025 al 11:00 AM. Despite the same, out of the (21) individuals' the respondents issued orders vide No'P3/255(2)/2O24-RM:MR dated O4.O4.2O25, promoting only (19) individua-ls, excluding the petitioner \ 6 PK, J W.P.No.12105 of 2025 while promoting his juniors. According to the respondents, the case of the pctitioner has been deferred solely on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner contends that the pendency of such disciplinary proceedings cannot be an absolute bar on the promotion avenue of the petitioner in view of the circular dated 06.03.2014, while the respondents, also placing reliartce of the sard Circular, justify their action. Thcrefore, it is apposite to refer to the circular relied .n by either party, i.e., Circular No.pD_ 10/2014 dated 06.03.2014. The orders issued therein are extracted hereunder: -oI ',t - An employee, who is und.ergoing punishments like Censure, deferment of Annual Increment with/without cumulative etfect and damaCes /lo.sses i., r,o.,_"r"p".r"ion ca"e ou.in g :::":.-T^T ::sl_o-f Lne perloo one year preceding the date of selections, carr be considered for promotion to next higher post, if he i" .,o, ort found unsuitable. ".*i"" 2. However, if an employee is undergoing punishment in suspension cases for an act of involving in mora Iuipitude, serious mis-conduct, fraud, theft, insubordination, assault, fltal accidents, vigilance cases, ACB cases and women harassrnent etc. under Regulation 9 of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations OR casting doubt on_. the capability of the employee to assume highei responsibiliLies, his case can not be considered unless he complites one yezr of service with clean record preceding the date of selections. The Selection Committee is competeni to decide the cases of such nature duly verifying the personal records and disciplinary cases concerned judiciously. 3. If the punishment is given within one year preceding t1.e date of selecLions based on al earlier offence, the date of ofience should be taken into consideration, but not the date of punishment, to determine the Clean Record. However, the selection Committee shall examine whether the employee had subsequently involved in any other offence. 1 PK, J W P No'121o5 of 2025 ,n ro,ie nex, llrH*H#;#tfffffi ; rhe ins,ruc,ion"l",",;;,iT{#,,-"+$:ji;i'fff5'#i:"x$ i:,"rilr-:*lt?lH.'#:J Lffi #i"'[f:;if eqffi ,1ffi;.$dffi lo n *ii"t"a r"i..ptT,"^ll";',"'';."I"'Jr,- ."mpl eti on, o t disciplin arv ,*n,"* in the panet ar-rd promotton iuGority shall . oroceedings and dectde "u^""a o" Ihe merits of the case' 7 An emrlovel' 11ril?"'.:"fl1'J?"i,:"5 ffj placed u nder su spension o" tolt^l:, -^'^";-iI-r,".mitted to effcct his "il-1""'11""!;fl iaised during the valrdlty of panel' "T P" l11t:tAuthority shall ;?.il,,""-""h""-"1*::T,i"tH':ti"J""'JiT#?;;;Ji;;.*o ;'."i:J *'.ffff"*'L ff#;:i,"'"J p'o-ttio" ba*"d on the merits of the case. rr r,ts su*p.n"Y#j" I-i.l- Jr"r completion of validity of o" p"ttiii"J-to efrect his promol-ion and his the panel, he shall ""t case can be placed o"i"[- tf-t" Selection Commitlee in the next selections." review tiil g. Admittedly, while working as Conductor in respondent No 3 Depot, the petitioner was issued with a Charge Sheet with two charges videNo.P3/114102112O24-RM:MRdatecl20'12'2024'Thepetitionerhad denied the said charges, by submitting his explanation datecl 2A.12.2024. However, it is to be noted that ttre proceedings are stiil pending and there is no progress therein thus far. 8 *t LV ' "'o' "'f,f;"" Io. From a perusal the aforesaid circuiar' it is ev.ident that the respondent authorities.of defer the promotion of an cmployee, in case he is undergoi,g ar-ry omaY hments' Admittedly' -in the case on hand, the pefitioner n." . "r.." "t*'tt record during the one year preceding his date of serection, ,..t" )., 04.04.2021 with no punishments imposed upon hir.t. Further, Ciause VI of the aforesaicl Circular, relied upon by the respondents, specifically provides for denial of promotion of an employee, who has been piaced under suspension as a consequence of serious misconduct. However, in the case on haad, the petitioner rvas never placed under suspension. Therefore, as per the aforesaid Circular, this Court is of the view that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, in the case on haad, cannot be al absolute bar for promotion, more particular, without any suspension or punishment imposed upon the petitioner.

11. During fhe course of hearing, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of orders issued in Proc.No. E2 /25 5(2) /2O24-HZ dated 26.06.2025, whereby, the respondents have promoted one Mr. N Ramakistaiah, Junior Assistant (F), as Senior Assistant (F), in spite of pendencyoidisciplinaryproceedingsinitiatedagainsthirnvideCharge Sheet dated 20 '12'2024 ' However' the counter affrdavit frled by ttre respondents is silent in this regard' to rebut the same' Therefore' it can t I ! 9 PK, J w.P.No.121OS of 2025 be inferred that the respondents have exhibited a differential treatment in the case of the petitioner, which is unsustainable and impermissible u nder law.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of ADC/Controller on par with the unofficial respondent Nos'4 to 17, rvith effect from the date of their appointment, with all consequential benehts.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed arrd the respondents are directed to effect the petitioner's promotion to the post of ADC/Controller on par with the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 17, who \,\,erc promoted vide proceedings No.P3/255(2)/2024-RM:MR dated 04 .O4.2025, with all consequential beneflts. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. N SD/. P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation' Bus ehivin. RTC-x Road, HYderabad' iffi.DJ.'iii.i'p"i".h"6r cjfril"i o/o NI D' office' rGSRrc' Bus Bhavan' RTC KRoad, HYderabad. ii"- nlii[?,]r' 1iJn, gli,-rc s nrc, Med ak Resio n' Sansared dv' Sa nsa redd v District. ffi; c'c to sRl V.NARASIMHA GouD, Advocate t-o-llJcl one cc to SRI u.sHANftri'effJs-FIXN'RAo' s'C Fbn rcsnrc [oPUC] Two CD CoPies To, 1 \ \ 3 4 5 6 BSR W HIGH COURT DATED:17109t202s CC TODAY ."1,r .. ,., . ,: .,i,rr!L :,r1, .'1:J.:.;.:- {\ i.r? tt15 ,.- , 1: * <:rl. : :!: -!: r ",t ,* ORDER WP.No.12105 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ^r( q$