High Court · 2025

SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD : SRI GADDAM SRiNIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) t \ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK oRDER: oN No. t36 24 of 2 4 This Writ petition, India, is filed seeking the foliowing relief. under Article 226 of the Constitution of :;;i;,;i;i"y:rfi ni!:,1:f i.Wix?,:;:;T:ye::";: '*i,,:ii,{{,ii:iilr*:li;:*Xi:WT*

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Assista:tt Manager (T), based on an articie published in a newspaper and also a complaint clated 17.0g.2022 lodged by one Mr. G. Tirupathi Nayak, a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Assistant Engineer (M) of respondent No.3_ Depot, ald he submitted the preliminary enquiry report on 31'o8'2o22' subsequently, respondent No.2 issued the charge sheet dated 09.03.2023, framing four charges against the petitioner. In response to the said charge sheet, the pedtioner submitted his explanation, denying the said charges. However, an enquiry was conducted by the Depot Manager, Karimnagar Depot, who submitted r11'-. ,. ; ri i"l.llAr [r \ 2 PK, J W.P No 1 )624 of 2A24 t. hoiding charges his enquiry reP' 't' 3 and 4 u'ere l t:1d as not Proved enquiry report the resPondents service virle ir'pugned proceedin 24 .O5.2Ot24 ' F ssailing the same' 7 atd 2 as Proved' whi''e charges ConsequentlY' based o -l the said have removed the Petil oner from gs No.E1 / 1 14(1) i 2022-Rl'n:KR dated the present writ petition i s filed'

3. 11s21d irli V Narasimha Goud' learned counsel aopearing for the petition'3r and Sri Gaddam Srinivas' learned Stand Lng Counsel appearing on trehalf of the respondents' LcarrLe'l counsel for the petitioner contendecl that respondent 4. No.2 failed tr) appreciate that Mr' G Tirupathi Na1'ak' the individual whose cotnrllaint was the basis for initiation of the present proceeclings. was never examined during the enquiry' u hich deprived the pctiti'1l,'rr of a valuable opportunity to cross'examine the complainan'. Hence, the said action of the responclt:nts is in violation of Articles 11,21 and' 300-A of the Constitution of In<:'ia and is also untenable .tnder law' lt is further contended that re spondent No 2 failed to irppreciate that the hndings of the enquiry ol'ficer regarding charges 1 rnd 2 are based on perverse reasons' as the said charges are a1reatll vague, and the enquiry officer had also hel':l the charges 3 and 4 as lot proved. It is further contended that the al.legatiOnS I i i I 0 w.p.N". j3624.f;h{ outiined in the charges are not only vague but also lack severity, and thus, the charges are defective since they do not aligrr with the meaning of misconduct under which the petitioner was charged. Hence, the impugned proceedings are not tenal not.tenable in law' Further, since there is no gravenes",: ,;" ^:_ in the charges, the petitioner was also not kept under , making the impugned punishment highly unwarranted. It is further contended that no show_cause nodce was issued to the petitioner before the imposition ol. the impugned punishment. As such, the impugned order gonfl4ysnes Articles 14, 21 and SOO-a of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition by setting aside fl qsluc tne rmpugned order dated )4.os.2o24. "r"o..r"ro.rt""

5. per contra, learned Stalding Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the complaint against the petitioner dated 17.08.2022 lodged by Mr. G. Tirupathi Nayak, alleged that the petitioner was misusing his authority while a_llotting the duties by collecting bribes, using filthy language towards women employees, and also threatening ald harassing the employees. The complaint further alieged that the petitioner uttered the words, .nannu emi chegatledu' nenu cLrcppindheg adhikaruru pani chestLnnt, ae adhikari aina na maata utntaclu, nenu koti rupaAalu aasthulu 4 PK' J w.P.No 136''1 af 2024 koodPettanu" IJl.,rn receiving the said complaint' the mat:er was th,:,\ssistantEngineer(M)toconductapreliminary entrusted to enqu1ry. Accortli rg1y, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the (M) submitted his preliminary enquir'; report Assistant Engrne . r established' Flased on wherein, pima focie "I/as d.aLed' 28.09'2O2" entire evidence available on the said prelimirrzrry enquiry report and Karimnagar region' issued a record, the Depr ily Regional Manager' charge sheet to the petitioner on 09 03'2023' framing fou: charges against him, f':r which' the petitioner submitted his expla lation on 09-06.2023. Flo'rrever' having been dissatisfied with the rrame' the respondents orrl':red to conduct a domestic enquiry into t}ie charges leveled against the petitioner' Accordingly' the enquiry ofhcer conducted thr: llomestic enquiry providing ample oppcirturlity to the petitioner to p.I]sent his case' and submitted the enquiq report on \6.Og.2023- TL'lereafter, a copy of the enquiry report wa.s furnished to inviting his objections/ comments' il aI y' and in the petition€r response, the petitioner submitted his objections on (t7 'I2 2023' which were rle r rned unconvincing, as the petitioner r'l'as flund guilty of the charg':s' beyond any reasonable doubt Hence' a show cause notice for rerrLcrval was a-lso issued to the petitioner on 10'05'2024' However, de s1:ire providing sufficient time to the petitioner fof hiS 11 5 PK, J W.P No.13624 of 2O2a explanation, he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. Thus, based on the enquiry report, the respondents imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner vide proceeding dated 24.05.2024. It is further submitted that availed . the a_lternate remedies available Regulations of the respondent Corporation the petitioner had not under law and the Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival contentions made by learned counsei for the respective parties.

7. A perusal of recorrl discloses that disciplinar5z proceedings were initiated .against the petitioner based on a complaint lodged by one Mr. G. Tirupathi Nayak on 72.Og.2O22. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Assistalt Engineer (M) of respondent No.3_Depot, who submitted his preliminary enquiry report on 26.09.2022, establishing a prima facie case against the petitioner. Consequently, a charge sheet vide proceedings dated 09.O3.2023, was issued by respondent No.2, framing four charges against the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the charges, on 09.06.2O23. However, having been dissatisfied with the explaration of the petitioner, a domestic enquiry was ordered, ald t] 6 PK' J tL. p Na.1: a;21 ai 2024 based on the en( rriry report, the punishment of removal frorlt servrce vide impugrred 1l-oceedings dated' 24'05'2024' was imposed on the petitioner. In th'r; context, it is relevant to refer to the charg:s leveled against the rlot tioner and the following is an exccrpt of the said charges -l. For lnuing inuolued in potice cases' tend/ debt anlount front th'= '.mplogees and demanding the bibe from e mplr'tgees bg the Complainants in enquiry uthich ls s':nous as '"epc11,2(1 mis-crtnrl Lct and tarnished the image of Corporation 'mder Regulati.c, 78 ond 28(xu) of TSRTC Employee::(Co':duct) Regntl a|.ior '-s, 2. Fcr Lrouing used' truIgar' fitthg and un par tiam':ntartl langurtg< as reported by the complainants in enquirl rttl''ich i's seriou.'; rris-coa duct under Regutation 28 (xuiii) and (t'tr.] of I'S.RTC Lnptogees(Conduct) Regutations' 1 963' 1963' I-o,. hauing misbehaued tuith ladg emptogees Qs rt:porled 3. bg thr; |omptainant in enquiry tuhich is senou's mis ( onduct und.or f1egulation 28 (xu), (xxxt) and (r^rLi) o/ ?"SR'1c Ernplcg :es(Conduct) Regulations ' 1963' .trr'r hauing used' utter uords on higher ups rt'hich is 4. sr:nor.rs mis-con duct and tamished the imoge of Cor'Ttoration under l;t'e-gulation 28(uiii) & (xrxii) of TSRTC Emploge'es(('onduct) Reguiaticns, 1963." l.l 7 PK, J W.P.No.13624 of 2024 8 It is undisputedly clear from the above that the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is the complaint hled by Mr. G. Tirupathi Nayak dated 12.O8.2022. However, as can be seen from the record, the complainant himself failed to appear before the enquiry officer to support the allegations urged against the petitioner in his complaint d,ated_ I2.O8.2O22. Further, it is pertinent to note that the charges 3 and 4 were explicitly held as 'not proved,, due to a lack of supporting evidence. The Itndings of the enquiry officer regarding charge 3 indicate that no witnesses came forward for providing their statements to substantiate the said charge against the petitioner. As regards charge 4, the enquiry ofhcer has categorically held that the compiainalt himself remained absent and that there is no evidence to prove the said charge. Thus, those two charges were held as hot proved,. 9' Admittedly, since the enquiry ofrrcer held the charges 3 and 4 as not proved on the main ground that the complainant himself was not examined, the same logic ought to have been applied while dealing with charges 1 and 2 as wel1. without examining the complainant, held the charges as proved. failure to examine the cornpl2inant deprived the petitioner of a However, the enquiry ofhcer, This 8 PK, J w.P No.13621 of 2024 reasonable opp ) rtunity to cross-examine the complainartt ' thereby' violating the pri lcrples of natural justice' 10-TheFlcnlllcApexCourt.inaCatenaofjudgmr:nts,has consistently he .i that an enquiry against a delinquent cifhcr:r must be conducted in a. leir and tralsparent manner, ensuring that he is given a reasonabl,: o.rportunity to defend himself The Hontlle 'rlpex Court also held th:rt the non-examination of the complainant during an enquiry am.ou lts to violation of principles of natural j lstice ln Harduaril'<llU'StateoJU.P.oLndothersl,theHon,ble'qpexCourt held has 1bllcu t;: luitness' '3- Before us the sole ground urged. i's os to tlle non obseru.lt .e oJ the pinciples of nitural justice in 'aot e^qmiltftq the Jaqdish Rt'tm 'Ihe corrTrtailunt" Snn ii'init' Singh' and thZ TnblLncll ds utell cLs the High iourt houe brus.hed aside the gieuatrce ^,ia" Ut' the appetlant thit the non-examination of those tlro persofts hc!u€: pr( Ndiced no-r;i.- Exqmination of these tLUo ruitnesse's tuoutd hctu<: re ,tzalecl as to- iieth"r the comptiint made bg virender sing.h the best persoll to u)as col -?.ct or not .1nd to establish ihot h" sperrk I ils ,"'a"ti So also' Jagdish Ram' uho had acco:npanied iii app' tta,l to theiospitol foi me-a.icat examination' wor'lcl houe been at7 in',p )"tant *itnt""'to proue the state or-the contTitiolt of the 'irp.ll|'.,- we do not thi;k the Tibunal and the Hiqlt Co ''rt Luere 1ustifi'zc' in hu,xirLg ;llrli iin examination of these tLUo trtersttns could n'tt bet nateial. In ttlese circumstances' ue ore of .the 'h:' :::^ iign C,.ttt clnd the Tibunal eted in not attqching impartatre to tnts contel:.t:.t7 of the qPPellqnt' *."" "" 1' Howeuer, Shi GoeI' the learned Additioncl Aduocate (iere"at, State o1 iia' naaesn has submitted that there wos other come to the conclusion one u'ag of the nratetictl tuhich *o"' other (L1d n" no" ioiii u.s through the same. But tuhile apPrecioting the eui l?nce on ,"co,d the impait of the testimong of the co|.Lplaitant "'fii""' 'o ' (1999) 8 SC(l ;32 9 PK, J W.P.No.13624 of 2024 ""g cannot be uisualised. Smilarlg, ttLe euid.ence of Jogdi_sh R<tm would also bear upon the state of ineiriatio", if , , i!ti;;ii";;;.

5. In the circafistances, we are satisfied thot tlere tuas no prope.r enquiry hetd ba the authoiti,es ii;-;;;*l)ouna _" quash rhe order of dismissal Da_ssed. against the appellani bg setrtng o-side the order m(lde bu thp High cirrt "11iin[ii,J' ,rii, o1 ,n. Tibunol and direct thit the appellont be reinsiated in seruice. Consideing the fact of a lond lapse of time a"f"r" ri ii|,idrsmr.ssol and reinstatemen4 and noLu*" iii ii p"rir""'rio*rl1T\i", "r,* ,:,.:17:7"!.,", we think it appropiote to auard ST-per cent of the back wages betng paqabte to tlle onoellant. w" nu" ofii*1i if,peat filed bA the oppellont. Howeuer, tiin,n U te'no'Jr'a;;;: r;':.:{" "rd "; 1 1 ro Kutd.eep singh u. commtssioner of potice and others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observations: -^^^,).?::^. comptannqnts along with Shiu Kumai, *ir" nit ;;;;";; i,i1;:7 Rajpat Sins_h ?!d lganey Shaam uho were the onsinat qnd tte report a.s Xn*" resardins their qbsenie, h"; ;;;;;";: "the tuo prosecutron rrifnesses, Rajpal Singh ond Radheg Shgam haue not attend.ed ,n" pro["iigi.'";;;;;:'"r, ?11 fo,1"a residing in their vitiagie ,ri i"a'ii',JiTii". * nohce. thot the defauUer h<ls managed their clisappeira-nce and hqs setaed them sometuheri in oeuti iii.Iniir"ana atso hcts anranged their emplog.ment,oir;n"- "iiT"ir"i ,J those pws qre not knoun. suih is tte. ".t'il ,i"'iJiiit to crcote his defence and is an "n;t; ", ;; triii",nt, miy3ldyct, thouAh their comptaint, er. i,it_tii iil"t""^ exhibited and hrzs been t"rti o" trtiii i""i"i"'if. ii"" and for natural justice., 4 1. Smt Meena Mishra" appeaing a.s o. witness for the D,cparimcnt. clenied hauing made ang pqgment to th.e appellant on that-doa. rhe t(lbourers t6 whom ,ti i"iiri i""".fr ffil\r" 0""^ :::: !?rin.ot been producea at tne aoke'stii ""qrril.'"il#"*-rr"a preutous statement could not haue been Urr"gniG i".;i urio., nut" 16(s). As such, there utas absolutetg ,f rr* .3:y- f:^:o as-oinst the appeilant "r"a ,i.'Z^ii* j^ii,l{""',""o,a.a Da rhe enquiry officer are utiated. bg,.!"r" oI i;;i;;l'iii'rn"s or. not supported bg ang euid.ence on reiord <znd. ire ;;"ti; ;;;;";" ", ;;;;;;;'i;";iii;" , (1999) 2 SCC 10 I i I I i I l j I I I l i 10 PK, J w.P.No 13621 of 2024

42. The enquiry officer did not sit LDith an open ntind to hold an irnpoiitl doruestic enquiry rtthich is an essential cotnPonent oJ tlae pnncrple: of natural justice as o,lso that of'reasonctble oppor''unitA", con.templ t .ed by Article 311(2) of the Constitution The "ttttts" in fauc,tur oJ le Department had so badlg qffected tlE enquiry '-).fficer's whole J-a' ulty of reasoning tllat euen non-production of the con plaints lr/os a..ic ibed to the appetlant u.thich squarelg uas the fauli of the Departtnt L"t. Once the Depatlment kneu that the lQbourers uere emploget' somewhere in Deuli Khanpur, lheir presence could haue bee,n p,'o tred and thea coutd haue been produced before the enquiry officer :lo ,-roue the charge franned against the appetlcLnl. LIe htts octed so arbitr',,111) itL the motter and has found the appellaftt ELiLtA ln such a coctrs( manner that it becomes apparent that he pqs merelg carrying c,rLt the command from some supeior offi.cer u'ho perhaps directeT '1ir him up"."

12. Further. in llnion of lrtdia. u. Suresh Kumar Singh3, the Hon'ble Ap,r>: .- ourt has confirmed the judgmcnt of a Division Bench of the High C:or, rt at Patna with the following observations: "10. lL: penLsat of the record would clearly reucal thot an oppaft'ltilA was given bg the appeLlate authoitg to tlrc Enquiry Commi.ttee to exqmine the important uirnesses. Euen oi remond' the st id t.lLrt t: uitne-sses were not exqmined 1 i . .lL the absence of the examinqtion of tlrcse three uitQl ruitnesses, the apptllate duthoitA found thctt the charges dgaitst the respondent uercz nc'. Julkl prouecl and tqking into considerqtion this aspect, the leanrccl Single Judge atloued the petitioner and the Dtuisio 1 Betrch aJfirm'zc' 'he same."

13. A pertrsu of charges I and 2 clearly shows that charges are very vague a -.d lack distinctness. As per the regulat.ions of the respondent I )rporation, the charges must be defrnite ari'l the charge sheet must ir rclude a list of documents and witnesses relied upon. 3 (2022) 7 SCC €rs 71, PK, J W.P.No.13624 of 2024 The record further reveals that the charge 1 was held lroved, based on alr incident of 2O7Z i.e., FIR No.22 of 2OlZ, which was registered on the basis of a complaint from one Mr. Gaaga Ram. However, it is pertinent to note that the present charge sheet dated 09.03.2023, was issued almost six years after the said incident, that too, relying on a third-party complaint without . even examining the original Further, a close reading of charge 2 discloses that the petitioner had used vulgar, filthy ald unparliamentary lalguage against the complainant. However, since the comprainant himserf was not examined, the enquiry officer ought not to have herd the said charge as proved. complainant.

74. The respondents have challenged the very maintainability of the present writ petition, contending that the petitioner approached this court without rrrst exhausting the alternative remedies ava,abre under law. While it is, in fact, true that the existence of an alternative remedy is a general rule for refrarning to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, in a catena of judgments, the Hon,ble Apex Court a.d the various High Courts have indubitably heid that the mere existence of an alternative remedy, particularly in cases where the fundamental rights are at stake, does not constitute an absolute bar over the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of tle l i t -t I 1 j i I l I I I I I t l I I I i I I 1 I i I .l l , I I t t2 PK, J $t.P.IIo 1::'24 oJ' 2024 Constitution of i ldia and the High Court has the discretion whether to entertain a r'urL: petition or not, taking into consideration the facts and circumstarLc,:s of the case. In P. Laxnaiah u.- Telangana State Road Transport: Corpotationa, a learned Single Judge of tl-ris Court held as follorvs "6, As a rl.otter of foct, in a catena of decisions, the Supr'.,me Court took the ui tt, that mere existence of an alternatiue remedg is no bar for fiIrnq 'a ll,rit petition. Howeuer' this Court, white entertai'itlg tl wit 'peiton'file,i by tLw petitioner Luithout auaitirlg alternallue retnedu ' hos io tout into thJ facti of a particular case lf the method adopted ltgteh d"prrt,n r-r, to dec with in emploge" and if the punishrnent ultirnatelg iijtirt"a .rt ."t t the conscience of the Courl, more particttla.rlg uttet o' niajor ptrnr:,hment is nflicted lor a tiuial mtsconduct'. tt oru the part of this Court to entertain a unt pentiott fled "iir"pirt: iiiofir, g tlrt: luisdiZtion inder Arlicte 226 of the Constitution oJ Indi(L in"tlrrri u,' subjecting the emplogee to pursue the depottlnental remedte: i,rla ,ito bejore the tndustial Tibunal gears toget4er'" .would

15. In the instant case, there are serious inhrmities in the conduct of enquiry, as the very complainant was never exalnint:d by the enquiry olf1cer. Moreover, the ftndings of the enqu1ry rfltcer are contradictory, :Ls; charges 3 and 4 were held not proved dur: to lack of evidence but c lrarges 1 and 2 were held provecl in spi'e of non- examination of the comPlainant.

76. In rhe f rregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that imposition ol' :.n extreme penalty of removal from service is not 4 (2016) 5 ALT 411, 13 PK, J W.P.No. 13624 of 2024 sustainable, and therefore, the impug:ned punishment order dated 24.O5.2024 is liabie to be set aside 77 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition is a-llowed setting aside the impugned punishment order r.ide Proc.No. E 1 / 1 A (1) / 2022 _ RM:KR dated 24.O5.2024 issued by respondent No.2, and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, forthwith. It is needless to say, the petitioner is not entifled for any back wages in view of the ho work, no pay,principle. i i Misce aneous apprications, if arry, pending in this writ petition, sha,ll stald closed. No costs. Rule Nisi has been absolute as above. .That Witness the Hon,ble the Acting Chiefirsfi"e SUJOY pAUL, on this Thursday, the Thirteenth ary or r,,'rr"r,-,T*;;;;;;d and Twenty Five. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA RE DEPUTY REGIST DDY RAR s CTION OFFICER 1 2 .) 4 5 6 The Managing Director , TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, RTC 'X'Road, Hyderabad The Regional lt4ana ger, TSRTC, Kariman gar Region, Karimangar The Depot Manager, TSRTC. Bus Depot, Korutla, Jagityala District. One CC to SRt V.NARASIMHA GOU D Advocate tOpUCI One CC to SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies 5 To SA BS HIGH GOURI' DATED:1310312t025 ORDER WP.No.13624 oI 2024 ALLOWING'THE W.P WITHOUT CO:STS. @" %:, iA i,t-. I. l, ' t, -::"- \r '- '.', j.^ :,- _)... 2 B i,l[i /0?5 * Ogg1";.iC v ,-) L, t