The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI R. ANURAG, S.C. : )R TGRTC The Court made the following: ORDER --aa- I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJE,SHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.13s51 0F 2013 ORDER: This writ petition is hled aggrieved by the Award dated 12.O3.2OO4 passed by the 1" respondent IN I.D.No.113 of 2OOi.

2. Heard Sri G.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2'd respondent'

3. The brief facts of the case are as follolvs:- (a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Concluctor on 2O.t2.lga6 on daily wage basis and subsequently his services were regularized with eflect from 15.07.1987. The petitioner claims to have performed his duties diligently for over 17 years, without any adverse remarks until the incident that led to his removal. (b) On 03.05.1999, while the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Conductor on Bus bearing No.AP-92-2826 on the route from Women's Coliege to I I I ,i I 2 Bacharam 'X' Road, a surprise check was c( nducted by the checking officials of the Divisional I;nforcement Squad at Stage No.17/ 18, Bacharam 'X' Roarl and alleged that the petitioner r,r,as involved in cash ancl ticket irregularity and accordingly, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on the sarne d"y. Th r petitioner submitted his explanation on 03.05.1999. I ot satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitirrer, he was placed under suspension on 10.05. 1999, a:t l a charge- sheet was served on him on the same day iaming the following charges :- "(i) Charge No. 1: You haue failed to comptt te ticket issues uitlin one fare stage uhich constitutes nr sconduct in tenns of Reg.2B (ut) (o) of APSRTC Dmplogees Conduct Regulations. I 963. (ii) Charge No.2: You hctue collected the fare c E2 tr.tho boarded gour bus at Kauadipallg and I Bacharam X Road ex-steges 15 to 17/18 issut't ticket Nos.227/ 697224 of Rs.3.OO and 33Ot'<i. Rs.2.OO tphtch uas already sold in the trip fro, Rauirala 16.10 hrs late departure 18.3O hrs ct1'< Abdullapuranettu and tLrc same toere alreadg c din SR which shotus respondent-issued uhich ct misconduct under Regulotion 2 s(xxiii) of Employees Conduct Regulations, 1 963. " 'Rs.2.50 ound for beaing '6196 of t Banda rating to :counted nstitutes APSRTC (c) The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge-sheet on 21 .05. 1999 denying the said charges. Thereafter, the 2"d respondent ordered an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 15.07.1999 holding that the petitioner was guilty of both the charges. The petitioner submitted his objections to the enquiry report on 27.O3.1 999, but the disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice proposing removal from service' The petitioner again submitted a detailed explanation on

03.O8.1999, denying all the allegations. Not satislied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner-, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 07'08 '1999, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal on 23.08.1999, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 29'09'1999' A review petition was also hled before the Regional Manager and the same was rejected on 18.07.2000' Aggrieved by the order dated la.O7 -2OOO , the petitioner filed I.D.No.68B of 2OOO before the Labour Court, which was later tralsferred to the Industria-l Tribunal-I, Hyderabad' 4 and renumbered as I.D.No. 113 of 2O0 1. The Tribunal vide its Arvard dated 12.03.2004 while se[ ing asicle the order of removal, directed reinstatement o. the petitioner as a fresh conductor, without continuity r f service arrd back wages. (d) Thereafter, the award was impl:mented, and the petitioner was reinstated into serv ( c afresh on O4.O7.2OO4. However, aggrieved by thr. A.ward dated

12.O3.2OO4 insofar as not granting contint ity of service and back wages, the present writ petition is lleci.

4. Learned counsel appearing for rl e petitioner submits that the Tribunal while setting asirl: the order of removal, ought to have directed the rc I pondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with :on tinuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. Ihe Tribuna,l failed to provide any cogent reasons flor r ] rlstating the petitioner afresh instead of granting continrr ty of service, other benefits and back wages. Thereforr , ilre Award passed by the Tribunal is wholly unjust :r rd arbitrary. Therefore, appropriate orders be passerl in the writ petition by granting the relief sought by the petitioner 5 and allow the writ Petition.

5. The respondent hled a counter afhdavit stating as follows :- (a) The petitioner, who was working as a Conductor, committed serious cash and ticket irregularity on 03.05.1999 and therefore, he was issued charge-sheet and suspended w.e.f. 10.05.1999. An enquiry was conducted by the Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Hyderabad Division, who submitted his report on 15.07.1999. After considering the enquiry report and the petitioner's submissions, a shorn' cause notice for removal was issued to the petitioner on

28.07.1999. Subsequently, the petitioner was removed from serwice vide order dated 07.08.1999. (b) The petitioner's departmental appeal ald revision petition were rejected by the appellate authority and the Regional Manager respectively' Therea-fter, the petitioner raised I.D-No.688 of 20OO before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, which was transferred to the / I 6 Industria-l Tribunal-l/Hyderabad and I umbered as - I.D.No.113 of 200 1. The Industrial Tribunir , by taking a lenient view by award dated 12.03.2004, ;et aside the removal order and directed reinstaterr cnt of the petitioner without continuity of service anc without back wages. The petitioner was reinstated w.e I O7.OZ.2OO4 accordingly. (c) Since the petitioner was reinsta r.cl afresh. his senioriqr and service benelits are to be rr ckoned only from the date of reinstatement ald not fro..r the origina,l appointment date. Moreover, the pc 1 irioner has approached this Court with a delay of nine ,n:ars after the award of the Industrial Tribunal and there ltre, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appeaj.. ng lor the respondents submits that since the petitiont r committed serious cash and ticket irregularity on 03.1S. 1999, he was placed under suspension with effect frorr 10.05.1999 and after conducting a detailed enquiry, zr show_cause notice of removal was issued to the 1>:titioner on 7

28.07.1999. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the order dated 07.08. 1999 imposing the punishment of removal from service ald the sarne was conhrmed bv the appellate authority and the revisional authority However, by award dated 12.03.2OO4, the Tribunal by taking a lenient view, set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner afresh without continuity of service and without back wages. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that a perusal of the record certain facts made it ciear that the petitioner during his service, he was involved in various cash and ticket irregularity cases, for which, his increments were deferred for seven times, suspended three times, securigr deposit lorfeited once and removed from service once. 8

8. The above track record of the petiti( ner confirms that it is not a hrst case to consider his ca:;r . During his entire service, there are several irrcgr larities and punishments were suflered by the pr:ti -roncr. Ilven though, he doesn't want to learn anything fr.,,rrr his earlier mistakes and continued the same in tht re,st of his service also. As per the Tribunal Award, tl er allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved thz t he failed to give correct tickets and reissued used ticl<: s. It is also established that the petitioner tailed to , ompiete the ticket issues within the fare stage. U trmately, the Tribunal taken a lenient view and set aside thc removal order dated 07.08.1999 and directed to einstate the petitioncr into service afresh without contirr ity of service and without back wages. The said award v.Ls passecl by the Labour Court on 12.O3.2OO4. After rr apse of nine years, the petitioner approached this CoLu I questioning the award passed by the Tribunal.

9. In support of his contentions, lear::d Standing counsel for the 2"d respondent relied upor the Division 9 Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos. 1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2021, wherein with regard to delay, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KALWANT Sil'rGF/ GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJABT, the Full Bench held at para Nos.7l to 77 as follows

71. On the basis of the dec.isions of the Suprerrte Court, refer-red to qboue, the releuant considerations that may be taken tnto occount in determinitg the issue of deLag and laches ntag be sumntarized thus : (1) Though no period of limitation ts presciberl for the writ CoutTs to exerctse their powers utlder Afticle 226 of the Constitution of Indta or to Jile a urtt petition, a person aggneued should approach thr. Court without loss oJ time. In appropriate cctse-s, urhere there is deLag and the same has properlg been exptoiled with cogent reasons, Court mag condone the delaA as an exception to meet the ends of justice. But, tt tuould be ct sound and Luise e-xercise of discretion for the Courls to refuse to exercise tLet ertroordinary potuers utrder Arlicte 226 in the case of persons utho do not approach it expeditiouslg for relief and who stand bg and aLLoto thirLgs to happen antd thetL opproach the Couri to put font)ord staLe cLaints ctttcl try to usettle settLed nlqtters. (2) Courts hque euolued ru[es of se.lf intposecL reslrainrs or fetters Luhere tLe High Court mag not enquire into belated or stQle claim Qnd deng relief to a partg if te is found guiltg of laches. One wlto is tardg, not uigilant and does not seek interuetltion of the Court utithin a reasonabte time from the date of accrual o.f cctuse of oction or alleged uiolation of the constttutlortal, legal or otlter igltt, is tutt ent[tLed to reLief under Arttcle 226. (3) No hard and fast tule ccttt be laid dowtt for uniuersctl apptication and euery case shall Lnue to be decided on its oLDtt facts. ' l99l supp (l) SCC 504 l0 (1) There is no ittuio[abLe n e of latu that wheneuer th: z is a delag. the CoutT must tlecessailg refuse to entettai.n the petltlc L; it 1s a rule of practice base<7 ort sound and proper exercise of discrcl tn, ctncl eat:lt cose rrusl be deqLt ll'ith on its oun facts. 15) Tlere ts no lower llmlt or upper limtt and tt witl all rlt 7 znd on utlLat tlle breeclT oJ the fundamental nght and the remedA (L(u necl ere end llow the delall arose. (6) The pnnciple on which the Court refuses relief otL t e qround oJ' laclrcs or delag is thqt the ights accrued to others bu ']rc delag tt JiLing tlu. petitton should not be disturbed, unless there i:, r reasonable explanotion .for the delay, because Court should not )tt rm tnnocetlt parties i.f tLeir ights frud emerged bg the delag on l)\ paft of the petitio ners. (7) Where tllere is remiss or negligence on the petl approachinq the Court for relief afi.er an inordinqte anul delay. in suc/t crzses, it would not be proper to enforce tlu' ight. As a general rule if there has been unreasonsble d. ought not ordinailg to Lend tts aid to ct partg tn rz: t ertraordinery power oJ mandamus of a patlA ,t nexplained u ndarttentctl ty the Court <:ise of tht: (B) 'l'here is tlo LUGiuer of fundamental ight. But u.'|,i, t excrcisirLrJ discretionory lurisdiction Courl can take into ctccount dc,[rt. and ktc]tes ot1 tle petl oJ the applicant in approaching a u,it Court. (9) Though the Higlt Court in exercise of tte power under I lfs discrefio,r grant re\ieJ in cases uthere the fundaotent, uioloted, but, ln -such cases also, High Court, to meel .justice, sha refuse to exercise its high prerogatiue 1t .fouour of ct partg who has been guiltg of laches and u4 t otller releuont circurnstances uhich indtcate that t irtoppropiate to exercise the discretionqry juisdiction. 4icL€ 226 ut L nqhts are Ite ettds o-f isdictrort itt 'e there are taotttd b<: (1O) The fita):ttTttnt peiod ftxed bg the Legislature qs lh- time withirL which the relief bg a suit in a civtl CourT ,::rust be t) ougltt mag ordineiLlJ teken to be a reasonctble stand.qrd bg ultit h d.elag irt seekirtg rsmeQ! under Article 226 can be measured. (11) If a person entitled to a relief chooses to remann silent for long' he therebA giues nse to a reasonoble belief in the ntind oI others that lle is not interested in claiming thclt relief Coutls houe appted lhe' rule of rleLag with greater igor in serrice nTatters' (12) The benefit oJ a judgment camnot be eLlended to a case automatically. The Courl is entitled to tc.ke into consideration LlLe fact as to whether the petitioner h<td chosen to s ouer the rrtotte'r and wake up afrer the decision of the Court i'f it rc found lhat tlrc petitioner approached the Courl tuith unreasonable clelag' tlte sofiLe itag disentitlehimtoobtainadtscretionaryrelief.Lot.Lgdelagdisentillesa partA to the d.iscretionary relief under Artrcles 32 an<l 226 arrl persotrs uho lnd slept over their nghts for long ancl elected to wake up ruhen theg had the impetus from the jud'gmenl of sirrilarlg placed persots (13) Where duing the rnteruening period igtlts of thtrd pofiies haue crystatlized, tt uoutd. be inequitable' to disturb Lhose nglts at the instance of o person uho hcLs opproached the Court after lonq lopse of time and uhere there s no cogent explanation for the deLay (14) Where the appellate authoritll acting Luitltil its ltnsdictiott condoned the detag afier berng sotisJied LU h the fo.crc stated it relation thereto, the High Coutl itL exercise of ils potuers Lo(|e'r Article 226or22Toftheconstitutionshotllclllolorllin.rrill!Interf<.re11itlIth<' order.

72. An analgsis of the case law discusserl oboue Luould Qnq)ly nLake tt clear th6tt issue of a uit of o ratrcTatttus or cerTtortLn rs largelll tt matter of sound dtscretiort and witt tlot be grQtlted rf there is negligence or omissron oft the part of the persotl [o ossert llis nght os' taken in conjunction with the tapse of tinte ond olher crrcumslances' causes prejud.ice to ttle aduerse partlJ' Therefore' burdert lies on the workmctnuhohastoestabttshthotitlspiteofhisbestelfortsand diligence h.e u)as preuented from approaching the authoitg f ithin the peiod of timitation prouid'ed for or the Wit Court L/'tittlin a re'asonctbLe peiod of ttme if the workman is rtot qble to satisfactoritg exploin Luitlr cogent rea.sons for the delog he is not entitled to seek for condonottotl of lhe delag- It is tnrc th6.t the puntshment intposed ca|tot be : i t2 sustaited tn Lew becouse of the illegalitA crept in it tn not ( ,nducting o. pior enqulry. But, still the workman is under a statutotT) , bligotion to challenge tlle sonte wrthin the time provided bg the statt,t ny rules or regltlotiotts or ruilhin a reasonabLe pe.riod of ttme be.fore t t wnt Coun rf cletarl oJ :; to I8 qeers s cortdoned for no reason or foutt (,t1 tle part of the outltorila, tlrc proceedings which had attained fnol y are to bc' sef (rsrde. Setlilg eside of such order at a belqted staqe . r,7 allowing ol a sloLe clatm, nLaA, as ightlg hetd bg the Diuision BerLclt rrr Esa Aft'-s crzse (supr(r). insp e tlrc workman to seek for consequent;c. benefils of prontoliotr as uell, in u,ltich euent, the rights oJ the third 1tt rties utould aduerselg be affected for no fautt of theirs- A utorkmcur L ho is tardA end trct cliltgenl for gears in ouailing a statutory re t,zdg or irL approecltitg tlrc Courl of lau-t, in our utew, cannot be e1 ouroged or penrtitterl to conlettd lhqt in uieu of the decision of the .S; t, reme Court llle punislutleti ceulot be sustained in lqu, therefore. i .lag to an! exleti s to be condoned automatrcallg in exercise (l llLe power cortfcned ot1 the appellqte or reuisional qutlpittes rLr tl tlrc utit Coluls itt exercise of the drscretionary powers under Arlitl , 226 of the,. Cottstilutton of hdia. Courts can cotne to the aid of a pz son LDho is dilqertt ancl uigilant but unable to approach the authotitL or CoLtrt of Latu for redressoL oJ his grieuance in spite of his bes, efforts and reosons berlotLd his corttrol but not to a person utho : tardy anc) neglgent or slept ot)er t lte ntatter in auailing the stotlt,ry or leqal renledtes-

73. No cloubt ut llrc present cases tlrc punishment au)ar. e i cetTnot be susteurcd trt lQtu rrr uieto of the latu aid down bg the Suo-t ,trc C.ourl in Kulluqti Surqh Cills case (supra) and in the light oJ the l,gutotiotls. l:ut. a specific peiod lnoing been prescnbed in the Rett,L tiotls of the (:orporetiott. as stated earlier, the so,me need to be arl,r red to The prouiso urLder Requlation 23 empotuers the appellate uLthoity t<.t entertain arr appeal euen afier exptry of the peiorl f limiatiott prodded /il is satrsled that the dppellant had sulfictent ( u.$e for not submrttlng the. appeal in ttme. A stmiLar pouer maA alsc c' exerctsed under Reqttletion 29. If the authoita is nof sati-sli€ I wilh the explanatiotl offered bg the workman in challenging tti t ortlers of punishtnent. tfus Court, in exercise of the lurisdictior r., vjer Artcle_ 226, crurnol irfterkre Lnless lhe conclusion afiiued. at btl 1 tt alLthonttl thGl llte explanatiotT offererl bg the workman is no jttstifiecl or gennane ot no pn)dent Person u)ould haue come to such a conclusion- In eppropridte cdses u)here the appeoL or reuision is filed ttithin a rea.sonable peiod of delag, it is alwags open to the appellote or reuisional authoritA to condone the deLag on uahd explonation put fotllt bg the workman in not approoching the authonties tuitltitt the tinle specifed, tn uthtch euent, the unt Courl should not interfere roith I ht: order. hL our opinion, when Regulations prowded q period of tLDo mo'l:ths for rthng an appeaL and s* montls for o reuision, detag of 5 to 18 aeqrs in opproacLtng the authoitg LDould certainl! be fatol to the case of a workman unless properlA exp[ained with cogent reGsorls'

74. It is true that in some cases tuhere the detag is fiue gears or so the Supreme Court tnclined- to condone the delog but under different circumstonces uhen the fundamental ights are uiolated or tohere th" d.e,tag is not directlg attibutable to the pqrtA seekng the telief or where the nghts of the third parties are not interuened or ln ttlatlers uhere senioritA of empLoAees ts not Jinalized, tle Cour7, u'oulcl be lustified to grant the reltef; but not as o genero'l rule of practice' Therefore, in our considered opinion, Kulutant Singh Gill s case (supra| cloes not confer or clothe an automcLtic right tuith tle ernployee to chatlenge the order of th,e authoitA at anA time or tuheneuer he utshes. The pinciPles laicl dotun bg the Apex Court gouernirlg the condon..tion of detag tuitt certainty and equaltA houe applicatiott euert in ccses where chattenge is mode to an order inposing lhe punishment cotLtrqry to the Regulations or the ratio in Kulwa nt Stttglt Gill's co-se (supral where the emplogee hod slept ouer the ntatter QtLd had not chosen to chatlenge' it uithin a reosonable peiod of tint'' lt mag also be noticed that in seruice matters, the Courts ltaue- opplrcd the rule o[ delag wilh grealer igor'

75. We, therefore, ogree with the uew taken bA the Diuistotl Rench rrL Sd. Eso Alis czse (suPra).

76. We answer the reference occordingtg

77. As alreadg noted, in some coses, it was urged that no orders are passed on the oppeois or reuisions filed bg the petitioners' In the Liglrt of the conclusions drawn aboue, the tDit ctPpeal and the respectiue uit petitions are to be disposed of bg tlrc appropiate Betlches' Registry mag pLace the matters before the appropiate Benches for - ; I i I I : I I I I I I r di.sposal irr ctctordqrtce with lotu qnd in the tight ol ,t e pnnctples laid down in tltis judgntelt. ' - t4

10. With the above said observatiotr; of the Apex Court, it is clear that while condoning t re delay under various circumstances, the Courts can .i llon, the above observations and also observed that dela.z of five years or so, the Supreme Court inclined to condorr( the delay, but under diflerent circumstances when tlr: fundamental rights are violated or where the delay is not directly attributable to the party seeking the relie I or where the rights of the third parties are not interven: I or in matters where ser-rioritv of employees is not finalr: ed, the Court, rvould be justified to grart the relief; but rr rt as a general rule of practice.

11. In the case on hand, after passing th : award by the 1'ribunai, the petitioner approached this Court aJter a lapse of nine vears and the sarne cannol be considered and as per thc above observations of ttr Apex Court, there is no violation of fundamental right ;, there is no third party intervention and there is r r affecting of seniority. So, the above said case is in favour of the l5 respondent Corporation.

12. Accordingly, in view of the above observations of the Apex Court and the track record of the petitioner, his case cannot be considered on any angle and moreover, the petitioner has hled the present writ petition after a delay of nine years. Hence, this Court does not find any fault with the impugned award of the Tribuna'l and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

13. With the above said observations, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed' Nc order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed sd/ A .T.SRINIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To One fair coPY to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAM (For His LordshiP's Kind Pe r) SECTION OFFICER U RAJESHWAR RAO

1. 11 L.R. CoPies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Buildings, HYderabad 3 Advocates Association Library, High Court -^..tr -- -,

4. One CC to SRI G. RAJESH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court for the i ate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] \

6. One CC to SRI R. ANURAG, S.C' for TGRTC [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies IMP PMK ?A1" HIGH COURT DAI'=D:1811112025 1!i Ie toR ll 2 ,1 1tl26 ?z I () (-) t-(k*' t 'ct ORDER WP.No 13551 of 2013 DISMISSING THE \IIRIT PETITION WI-'HOUT COSTS fMq ro\da'