Heard Sri v. Narasimha Goud

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order No E11114(5)12021- RM:NZB, dated 16.11 .2023 in differing two increments with cumulative dffective as well as the show cause notice dated 30.04.2024 as served on 06.05.2024 at 5 p.M. by the 2nd respondent stating that the punishment of deferment of (2) increments permanently is inadequate one, it is need to be enhanced to that of removal from service as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, in violation of Ar1. 14,21 and 3004 of the constitution of lndia and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice' lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to discharge his duties in the 4th respondent office by suspending the impugned show cause notice of removal from service issued in Proc. No. PA.|19K23)12024-ED:KF'.2, dated 3010412024 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of iustice. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL rt may be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the documents mentiont:d in para 4 and 5 in the affidavit as they are just and necessary for effectiver adjudication of writ petition by serving a copy of those documents in the interesl. of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between:

1. TSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC 'X' Road, Hyderabad.

2. The Executive Director, TSRTC, Karimnagar Zone, Karimnagar. 3. The Regional l\,4anager, TSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad. 4. The Executive Director (Operation), TSRTC, Operalion Department, Bus Bhavan, RTC 'X' Road, Hyderabad. AND M.V. Ramana, S/o. late Ramdas, Aged 56 years, Occ r\M(T), E. No. 307239, PJo. Flat No. 102, Sai Homes, Saroornagar, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in WP No. 13461 of 2024, daled 23.O5.2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER ,el THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.13461 of 2O24 Seeking to quash the impugned order No.E1l ll4(51l2O2I- RM:NZB, dated 16.1 1.2023, in differing trryo increments with cumulative effect as well as the show cause notice dated 3O.O4.2O24 issued by respondent No.2, the present writ petition is hled. 2) Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. 3) Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager (Trafhc), a charge sheet dated

09.12.2022 was issued to the petitioner framing four charges, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Aftei conducting the enquiry, the punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed vide proceedings dated 16.11.2O23 by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal to respondent No.2 wherein the impugned show cause notice for removal from service was issued to the petitioner vide proceedings No.PA/ 19(23) l2O2a- ED:KRZ, dated 3O.04.2024, by respondent No.2 proposing to 2 wP 13461_2024 PK, J impose the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4l Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned sho',v cause notice dated 3O.O4.2024, was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 stating that the 1:unishment of deferment of two annual increments imposed on the petitioner by respondent No,3 is inadequate for the proven charge(s) and the same needs to be enhanced to that of removal from service, which itself shows that respondent No.2 has made up his rnind to impose pre determined punishment of removal from servict: and calling for an explanation from the petitioner is an empty formality to impose the said punishment and any kind of explanation by the petitioner would not servc any useful purpose. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has failed to fo11ow his responsibiliby as laid down by Regulation 27 (11(b) of TSRTC CC&A Regulations, 1967, as per which, he ought to have appreciated that respondenr- No.3 has not issued any letter calling for comments on the Enquiry Report duly serving the copy of enquiry report and statements t.ecorded before issuing sholv cause notice dated 12.06.2023 proposing to impose major punishment. It is settied principle of law that no major penalty can be imposed without serving the enqu ir7 report and statements recorded therein and serving the other documents, . by (l 3 wP-13461_2024 PK, J which much prejudice is caused to the petitione r. Hence, the action of the respondents amounts to arbitrary exercise of power in violation of Articles 14, 2l and 3OOA of the Constitution of India and the same is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 17698 of 2000 as confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.9O8 of 2OO9. Therefore, the leamed counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 3O.O4.2O24 and also the impugned order No.El / 714(5) I 2O2I-RM:NZB, dated 16. 1 1.2023, wherein the major punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 26.70.2O16 passed in W.P.No.33446 of

2023. 5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that since the explanation of the petitioner to the charge sheet dated 09 .12.2022 was not convincing, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. In pursuance to the same, the trnquiry Ofhcer has conducted enquiry as per the Regulations of the Corporation duly following the principles of natural justice. Further, in this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the ground that the enquiry report was not served on him. The said objection of non-furnishing of the enquiry -l i I 4 wP_13461 2024 PK, J report was not raised either in show cause notice dated 12.06.2023 or in his appeal dated I9.O1.2O24 and for the first time he raised the said objection in the present writ petition. Further. during the enquiry, as the charges framed against the petitionr:r rvere proved beyond reasonable doubt, a show cause notice dated 12.06.2023, along with all material on record, was served on ttre petitioner and the same was acknowledged by him, to which, he also submitted his explanation. Having not convinced with the same, respondent No.3 has imposed the punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide office order No.E1l11a(OS)/21-RM:NZB, dated 16.1t.2023, as per the Regulations of the Corporation. Further, on perusal of the appeal filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 came to the concrusion that the penalty of defe rment of two annual grade increments is inadequate one and it needs to be enhanced to that of removal from service, r,r,hich is ht and proper to be imposed upon the petitioner for the proven charges. Hence, the irrrtrrugned show cause notice, dated 30.04.2024, is issued proposing fcr removal of the petitioner from the services of the Corporation in terms of Regulation 27 (1) (c) (I) (b) of TSRTC Employees (C:tassirrcation, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1962, and. to give ar:r opportunity to the employee to explain himself as to why the same cannot be imposed. Further, on receipt of the material documents, including tti' a 5 wP 13461 2024 PX, J the Enquiry Report, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the earlier show cause notice dated 12.06.2023 and after filing of appeal application, now the petitioner raised the new ground that enquiry report is not served on the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and same may be dismissed. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record 7l On perusal of the material on record, it is found that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager (Traffic), charge sheet dated 09.72.2022 was issued to the petitioner leveiing four I charges against him. To the said charges, petitioner has submitted his explanation and as the respondents are not convinced with the said explanation, a detailed enquiry was directed to be conducted into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Enquiry Ofhcer has conducted enquiry duly following the Regulations of the Corporation. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Pursuant to the same, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.06.2023 a,nd thereafter the punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments was imposed upon him uide order dated t6.11.2O23. However, on appeal hled by the petitioner, the impugned show ,,....'d'.'x;r-'.. .-..1*:.&i&.".r. 6 wP_13461 2024 PK, J cause notice clated 30.04' 2024 was issued to the petitioner proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service' The only ground raised in the writ petition is that the enquiry report as well as the statements recorded during the enquiry not served "vere on the petitioner 8) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner p'laced reliance on the order clated 30.10.2008 passed by t-tris Court in W.P.No.17698 ol 2OOO, u'hich is confirmed by the trivision Bench in Writ Appeal No.9O8 of 2OO9, but the same is no1' applicable to the case on hancl in view of the speci{ic assertions of the respondents that the petitioncr has received ail the documents and material on record including the copy of enquiry report and the same is not rcbutted by the petitioner by way of a reply Further, the learned Standing Counsei has strenuously c'lntended that either in his explanation to the show cause: notice dated 12.06.2023 or in his appeal application, the petilioner has not taken the saici objection that he was not served with enquiry report. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the objection raised by the petitioner is only an afterthor:ght and liable to be set aside. 9) Further, this Court is of the view that 1fie Disciplinary Authority on considering the entire materia'l on I'ecord including 7 wP 134612024 PK, J the enquiry report, has proportionately imposed the punishment of deferment of two annuai grade increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 16'll'2023 for the proven charges and this Court does not find any reason for the appeilate authority to modify and enhance the said punishment to that of removal from servlce 10) In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed in part and the show cause notice dated 30'04'2024 issued by respondent No.2 is set aside. However, the proceedings No'El/ ll4(51l2o2l RM:NZB,dated16.ll.2O2g,issuedbyrespondentNo'3are conhrmed ) if: /' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall stand ciosed No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

2. J.

6. The Managing Director, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, RTC'X'Road, Hyderabad' The Executive Director, TSRTC, Karimnagar Zone, Karimnagar' The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad' The Executive Director (Operation), TSRTC, Operation Department, Bus Bhavan, RTC'X' Road, HYderabad. One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC]

7. BSR GJP Two CD Copies \q/ HIGH COURT DATED: 3110112025 ORDER WP.No.13461 of 2024 ..,-\ ! __=:_=." ar l;j, .\ 3 11 APn zo2s t, ( PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .C .)t n ffii"