R. Sudhakar v. 1. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

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 consider the representations dated 1 1 .06.201g, 06.05.2024 and 06.05.2024 and release my amount which was reduced by two incremental stages from 44030 to 42010 and deducted amount of Rs.5000/- from my salary w.e.f., April-2018 to June, 2018 and differential gratuity of reduced two incremental stages and to Re-consider my request for Notional promotion to the I II Post of Depot Manager from the Post of Assistant Manager (Traffic), Warangal - | Depot from 12.06.2015 to 30.06.2018 (till the retirement date). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.PRABHAKAR counser ror the Respondent No.1to3 , ?SIsH+SRi3isffErl, The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard Sri R. Prabhakar, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and sri. N. chandra sekhar, learned standing counset for Telangana state Road Transport corporation zone-2, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2 as under: "...to issue a writ, order or Direction( more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring proceedings of the 1:;t Respondent / Managing Director Bus Bhavan, " Hyderabad No ECl674(02i/20L6_pD, dated L7_L2_2Ot6 is arbitra.y illegal unconstitutional apart from violating the Principies of Natural lustice and also violating Articles 14, 16 and 2L of the constitution of India and ultra vires to Rules of TGSRTC c c A Rules as well as Article 311 of constitution of India and consequenfly direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Depot Manager from the date of reversion orders till his retirement on 30.06.2018 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of administration of Justice...,,. t 2 SN, J wp_1661 l_2021

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that petitioner was initially appointed as Traffic Inspector, Grade-II on 13-07-1989, and secured promotion as Traffic Inspector, Grade-I on 12-06- 1996 and further promoted as Assistant Manager (Traffic) and thereafter promoted as Depot Manager vide Order dated

10.06.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was reduced in rank from Depot Manager to Assistant Manager (Traffic), Warangal-I vide impugned order dated L7.L2.20t6 and whereas petitioner's juniors continued as Depot Managers/Unity Officers. The petitioner filed appeal and the same was pending till his retirement i.e., 30.06.2018. The petitioner submitted a re.presentation dated 14.06.2018 to the Managing Director to promote him as Junior Scale Officer and the same has also been pending till his retirement. The petitioner was charged on the ground that he failed to insist the Traffic Supervisors for submission of requisition of monthly Toll Plaza Tickets and petitioner had failed to procure Toll Plaza Tickets at Armoor Depot from September 2015 to November 2016, as a result, an excess amount of Rs. 2t,46,970/- was paid at Armoor Depot towards Toll Plaza Tickets, which is illegal. Aggrieved by the Order dated L7.t2.2O16 of the Respondent No.1, the petitioner J SN, J wp_|661 I 2023 approached this court by filing the present writ petition and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Depot Manager from the date of reversion orders till petitioner's retirement i.e., ofl :0.00.2018 with all consequentia I benefits.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) same is extracted hereunder: "... Pleased to Amend the main prayer portion in w.P.No.1661L of zo23 as follows "it is therefore prayed that . this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring proceedings of the 1.t Respondent/ Managing Director Bus Bhavan Hyderabad No.ECl674)oz)/2oL6-pD, dated LZ.L2.2016 is arbitrary illegal unconstitutional apart from violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and ultra vires to Rules of TGSRTC c.c.A. Rules as well as Article 311 of constitution of India and consequenUy direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Depot Manager from the date of reversion orders till his retirement on 30.06.2019 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of administration of Justice.,, i 4 SN, J wp_1661t_2023 (B) The order imouqned dated 17.12.2016 passed hv the Resoondent No.l-Manaoing Director, Bus Bhavan, Mushirabad, Hvderabad is extracted hereqnder: "TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Office of the Managing Director Bus Bhavan, Mushirabad, Hyderabad -500624 Date: L7-72-2Or6 No.Ecl674(O2)/2016-P OFFICE ORDER Sub: REVERSION Reversion of Sri R Sudhakar, E.110571. Depot Manager, Armoor working under Reg-30 to his former post of Asst. Manager(Traffic) - Orders Issued. Ref: Office Order No.Eal255(04)/20L5-PD, Dt.03.06.2015 & 10.06.2015 *** Sri R. Sudhakar, E.110571, Asst. Manager(T), RM's Office, Warangal has been promoted temporarily under Regulation-3O of T.S.R.T.C. Employees' (Recruitment) Regulations as Asst.Traffic Manager and posted as Depot Manager, Armoor vide reference cited. In view of the administrative exigency, he was promoted to the post of Depot Manager without subjecting him to the process of Selection. Clause(5) of Regulation-30 of T.S.R.T.C. Recruitment Regulations, 2004 states that, the appointing authority shall have the powers to revert to a lower category or post any person promoted temporarily under regulation 30 at any time without assigning any reason and without notice. Sri R Sudhakar, E.11O571, Depot Manaoer, Armoor Reoulation-30 on administrative grounds. On reversion as Assistant Manager (Traffic), Sri R. Sudhakar, E.110571 is directed to report to the Executive 5 SN, J wp_t66tt _2023 Director(Administration), Head office, immediatery on receipt of this order, for further postings. Sd/-xxx MANAGING DIRECTOR To Sri R. Sudhakar, E.110571, Depot Manager, ARMOOR, T.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Region (c) extracted hereunder: "5. The petitioner was finally promoted as Depot Manager under proceedings No. Ea/255(04)/2015-pD dated 03.06.2015 and assumed charge on 12.06.2015 at Armoor Depot. It was explicitly stated in the promotion order that the promotion was purely based on temporary basis under Reg. 30of Recruitment Regulations-2004 and conferred no right to hold the post permanently or seek regularization. clause 5 of Regulation 30 Recruitment Regulations-2004 empowers the Appointing Authority to revert such an officer " to their substantive post without notice or assigning any reason.

6. It is respectfully submitted that prior to the issuance of reversion orders vide No. Ec/674(02)/zo].6-pD dated 17.L2.2OL6, the petitioner was issued a memo dated L7.09.2016, calling for explanation regarding his lapses as Depot Manager. Since no reply was furnished despite the lapse of more than one month, a detailed show cause notice was issued on 19.10.2016. The petitioner was clearly informed that his performance up to September 2016 was found unsatisfactory, with a fall in occupancy ratio by -2.2L and an increase in cost per Kilometer (cpK) by (+) sd lszos as against 3206), which was in deviation from expected performance.

7. It is respectfulry submitted that in addition to performance decline, a detailed inspection was conducted at I I I I i 6 SN. J wp l66ll._2023 Armoor Depot on 05.11.2016 and 06.11.20L6, which revealed several serious administrative lapses and gross managerial indifference. These included dereliction of early morning duties, decline in punctuality, failure to conduct line checks or gate meetings, refund of security deposits to conductors without accounting concurrence, and non- compliance with financial protocols such as non-transfer of funds to Corporation accounts. Further, violations were noted in tyre scrap handling, Kilo Meter Per Litre (KMPL) figures, inflation cltecks, absenteeism cases, and instructions of Accounts Manual. The petitioner's habitual absenteeisnr was cited as a root cause for non-implementation of Corporation circulars.

15. It is respectfully submitted that the entire relief sought has become infructuous, as the petitioner retired from service on 3O.O6.2018, while the present writ petition was filed only on 26.06.2023. after a delay of nearly five years. The core prayer to set aside the order to reduce the rank is hot legally sustainable after superannuation. Post-retirement, such retrospective claims are not legally permiqsible, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay, laches, and for seeking an infructuous relief". (D) Thd show cause notice dated 19.1O.2016 issued "TELANGANA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORTION No. PA/Com p(l) / 20 L6- Peshi., Office of the MD, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad, Dt.19.10.2016 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE To Sri.R.Sudhakar, Depot Manager, Armoor. tb* 7 SN, J wp_l66tl_2023 Sub:DERELICTION: Failure to submit explanation to the Memo Reg. Ref:- Memo no. even. Dt,*17.9.2016. Your attention is drawn to the memo referred above wherein you were called to explain (1) Bad condition of toilets of Kammarpally, Mortad, Bheemgal & pirket Bus stations (2) Utilizing of employees on o.D (3) Advised to submit the details of attendance of yourself and your front line supervisors for monitoring early morning dispatch duties in the depot for the past one month day wise, within 3 days. I have reviewed the performance of your depot upto Sept, 2016 in comparison with corresponding period of last year and noted that the occupancy ratio has come down to 6g.740/o as against 70.95o/o of last year showing decline trend by -2.zLo/o and also the total cPK for said period as gone upto 3265 as against 32OO showing an increase in CpK by (+) 59. It is noted that you are yet to submit your explanation though more than a month has elapsed. I view the same very seriously. please show cause to as to why you should not be reverted to your former post of Asst.Manager(T), in view of your indifference and gross negligence, immediately. Acknowledge receipt MANAGING DIRECTOR

5. The rned crru annearin on behalf of the i) The petitioner had been promoted under clause 5 of Regulation 30 of T.s.R.T.c. Employees' (Recruitment) 8 SN, J wp 166l I 2023 Regulations as Assistant (Traffic) Manager and posted as Depot Manager, Armoor vide office order No.Eal ZS5(04)/2015-pD, dated 03.06.2015 and 10.06.2015. But shockingly, the petitioner received impugned proceedings dated 17.12.2OL6 issued by respondent No.1 reverting the petitioner to his former post of Assistant Manager (Traffic) with immediate effect invoking Clause (5) of Regulation-3O of TSRTC Recruitment Regulations- 2004 on administrative grounds. ii) No prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order dated L7.12.20t6 and the .plea that the petitioner was put to notice dated 19.10.20t6 by the respondents as averred in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, is factually incorrect and false, since the petitioner did not receive any show-cause notice prior to issuance of the impugned proceedings and the petitioner to that effect has filed reply affidavit and in particular at para Nos. 3 and 5 petitioner specifically denied the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 9 SN, J wp t66l I 2023

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit contends that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2018 and the present writ petition had been fired on 26.06.2023, after a delay of five (05) years and that the petitioner had been put on prior notice dated 19.10.2016 prior to passing of the impugned order, dated 17.12.2016, but however, the petitioner failed to submit any explanation, hence the order impugned had been passed. 7 f I 10 SN, J rvp_1661 1-2023 t SN, J wp_.l66ll 2023 order dated 17.1 2.20a6oft e Manaqino Dtre r,TSRTC, n h n n allowed.

8. The ole of the res onde ts that th re had beena n tm uqnedo T f e h h ceedinqs 17.L2 2016 ol the Manaoi nq n n n s t am al e h t e n the doors of iu rce fortheoetitio er. c Th d d n n t n m tal h r c in2 2 others Vs. StateofBihar 7.8, 1O, 11. it is observed as under: 2 oth rs dt. 2L.O .2022 at Pa ras Para 7: Article 32 of the Constitution provides for a Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. The founding fathers contemplated that the very rigit to afproach this Court when there is a violation bf iunOamJntat Rights, should be declared as beyond the reach oi parliament anO, therefore, it is as a part of judicial review inat tne rignt under Article 32 has been put in place and invoked from t2 SN, J wp_1661 I 2021 time to time. That in a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of sell'restraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are germane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it is always open to a person complaining of violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Court. This is, no doubt, subject to the power of the court to relegate the party to other Proceedings. Para B : At the heart of the constitution lies certain principles which have, in fact, been recognised as part of the basic structure. Article 14 of the Constitution proclaims right to equality. The right against unfair State action is pirt of Article L4. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article L4 of the Constitution. A person entitled to be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on par with a person who is brought in by an incompetent Body, viz., the State in the manner done. Article 2t of the Constitution again is the fountain head of many rights which are part of the grand mandate which has been from time to time unravelled by this court giving rise to the theory of unenumerated rights under the Constitution. While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifiable custody'

10. we may take up the first preliminary objection by the state, namely, that the petitioners have approached this Court with considerable delay. The impugned Notification is issued in August, 20L6. A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the courts have recognized cnittenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interesf litigant. However, we may only indicate, ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a rb {, t3 SN. J rvp_ l66l l_?023 person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge. We must not be oblivious to the fact that based on the Notification, it appears that FIRs .urn" to be lodged by persons claiming to be members of the Scheduled Tribe community and seeking to invoke the l9B9 Act. The FIRS Iodged in the year 2O2O occasioned the petitioners to approach Courts seeking protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Two of the petitioners have noi iicureO such protection. Petitioner No. 1, it appears *u. not arrested. But even. assuming for a moment, that the petitioners have :of: *i9 .some delay, we find reassurance from the opinion of this Court in the judgment reporteO in Assam tnoia (rtilj 3 SCC 1, Sanmitita. Mahasangha v. Union wherein this Court has inter alia held us fof fo*i,_ -of F M nici oal h td (a w tve a rDn., I has no B m ncl ustv lv fun am ntal nohts can ot be . Giv nt ese lm ort nt toa ra 9) violati ons oft ef nda en person I ti wttho tmore wou dn the doors of the cou w n I riqht to lifea nd suffici ntt osh ut rW d lav orl achesb on anv Detitlone r. re, we do not hinkwe should be a w n

11. T e a 2 ofFun amental Riohts is clea lv d a I sta e.

10. Takinq anto consideration : a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counse! appeartng on behalf of the petitioner and learned v l t4 SN. J \^.p_1651l_2023 Standing Counsel, dppearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The averments of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in particular para Nos.S, 6, l and 15 (referred to and extracted above), d) The observation in the Apex Court judgment, reported in 2fJ22 scc online sc 232 (referred to and extracted above) e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos. 5 to 9 of the present order. oetitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 15 SN, J wp_I661 I 2023 Miscellaneous petitions, if dry, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/.AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAH A\-/ SECTION OFFICER The Vice-Chairman co'p"''liiol,'E;!'Eri"',1.X)1iffi,.:8"!o''-"r3:. relansana state Road rransport l::f,l;,?J,| b,3,;?; ;: [: [?xs,,1'#?,_ IB : n n " n a s ta te R o a d r ra n s p o rt 3' The Regionar Manager, Nizamabad Region Nizamabad District 4. One CC to SRt R.PRABHAKAR, Advocate. [OpUCJ s' one cc to sRr N..HANDRA .EKHAR, (sc FoR TSRTC zoNE 2). topucl 6. Two CD Copies. To, 1 2 BPK BS M -, HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 I F.F a, ) () l,i.?fi J ORDER WP.No.16611 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \