The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction' more particularly' one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No'2 herein' in rejecting themercypetitionofthepetitionerisillegal'arbitraryandviolationofArticlel4 and 21 ofthe Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents No' 2 to4togiveallthemonitorybenefitsandpensionerybenefitsbydulytakinginto the consideration of petitioners previous srlrvive of 15 years' IA NO : 'l OF 2018 PetitionunderSectionl5.lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthewritpetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto directtherespondentsNo.2to4togiveallthemonitorybenefitsandpensionery benefits by duly taking ink years, pending disposar o; service on3o.o42o1B the consideration of petiti wr* petition since rhe ffiilj:: r:..;ilili;: Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.CHANDRA SEI The court made the foilowing: .RDER : SRI G.SATISH BABU (HAR' (sc FoR TSRTC) J HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGF,SH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 14604 OF 2018 ORDER: Petitioner - Shramik in Respondent State Road Transport Corporation was issued - charge sheet dated

24.O3.2OO7 by the 4th respondent alleging unauthorized absence from duties, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation No. 28 XXVII of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations

1963. Basing on the enquiry conducted into the said allegations, the 4ft respondent removed petitioner from service, which is a major prinishment and disproportionate to the charges levelled against me, according to petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is stated to have preferred Appeal before the

3.d respondent - Appellate Authority, which, by order dated

31.12.2OO7, appointed him afresh as Shramik, but without any previous service and attendant benehts. The intervening period from the date of removal to the date of his re-appointment afresh should be treated as 'not on duty'for all purposes. - The grievalce of petitioner is that in view of the order of the 3'd respondent, he had to forego 15 years of service- cum-seniorit5z, consequently, he would get less monetary retirement benehts and family pension. Therefore, he filed i i :l 'l \ 2 mercy petition before the 2nd respondent 1n 2015, seeking regularization of 15 years of service, but the same was dismissed by the order dated 09.12.2016. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri G. Satish Babu submits that his client applied for leave frorn 21.O3.2OO7 to

24.O3.2OO7 due to ill-health and he was under the impression [hat leave was granted. It is stated that absence from duty is neither wanton, willful .por intentional, hence, requests this Court to allow the Writ Petition.

3. Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, based on the averments in the counter, submits that Petitioner was appointed as Conductor with effect from 17 .04.1986; he was placed under suspension from 09.10.1986 for having involved in serious cash and ticket irregularities on 2O.O9. i986 and subsequently, he was removed from service effective from O4.O4.1987. In terms of the orders of the Labor Court, Warangal in I.D.No.I2l of 1989, he was appointed as Cleaner afresh from 05.12.1991. Thereafter, he was again removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism on 14 .O9.2OO7. During the period from January, 2Ol7 to 24.O3.2OO7, petitioner maintained irregular attendance 1 I \ \ J and not avaiiable for his duties for as many as 8 days in addition to 15 days during the above period. Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Warangal on 03.10'2007. The Appellate Authority had reinstated petitioner into service on humanitarian grounds afresh as Shramik with effect frorn O7.O2.2OO8. According to this respondent, petitioner maintained irregular attendance which resulted in lot of inconvenience in the day to day work at garage section towards mai1tenance of vehicles for operations' The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the disciplinary authori[r, however, on humanitarian grounds, his Appeal was considered by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Warangal, by appointing him afresh as Shramik. It is stated, if petitioner is really sick, he should have attended before RTC hospital where better medical facilities were. provided, but he never approached the depot authorities for directing him to the Medical Officer of RTC for better treatment. Therefore, the contention of petitioner is only an after-thought ald not acceptable. It is stated that petitioner accepted the order of the Appellate Authority dated 31. 72'2OO7 and reported for duty. However, he filed mercy f review petition after a lapse of nine years i.e. during 2015 which was rejected on 09.12.2016. Petitioner kept silent for a period of 1O years 4 and now approached this Honble Court without explaining the extraordrnary delay. The writ petition is therefore, not maintainable on the ground of delay alone, hence, it is requested to dismiss the same. '..1

4. Having considered the material on record and having heard learned counsel on either side, there is no dispute that disciplinary authorit5r removed petitioner from service on the ground of unauthorised absence, after conducting full_ fledged trial and the. Appeal preferred thereagarnst was considered by the Appellate Authority on humanitarian grounds directing his appointment afresh as Shramik. petitioner accordingly, ioined as Shramik and retired from service in April 20 18 ofr attaining the age of superannuation. It is to be noted that petitioner filed mercy petition after a lapse ol.nine years during 2O 15. He did not explain . the said delay which, undoubtedly, 'is to be treated as inordinate.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1660 of 20i8 and 593 of 2016, by a common judgment, held that delay of 5 to 1g years as inordinate in preferring a Writ Petition. The same analory applies even in this case where petitioner filed mercy / review petition before the 2,d respondent after nine vears of obtaining order from the Appellate Authorit5r. I t l I I 5 Hemaintainedsilenceforaperiodoftenyearsandapproached this Court without explaining the extraordinary delay' Not only that, it is also to be taken into consideration that mercy petition was rejected on 09.12.2016 and petitioner instituted this Writ Petitionor.23.04.2o|Sie.nearlyafteroneandahalfyearlater. There is no plausible explanation forthcoming from petitioner even for this delay. In the light tf the foregoing discussion' the Writ Petition does not merit any consideration and is therefore' Iiable to be dismissed' 6 costs. 7 . The Writ Petition is accordinglY, dismissed. No ConsequentlY, Miscellaneous Applications, if anY shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI S TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Manaqinq Director, Telangana State Road Tra Bhavan. Mi-rs6eerabad, Hyderabad, T.S port Corporation, Bus 2- The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Warangal Region, Warangal Dist' 3. The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, TSRTC, Warangal Dist, Warangal' 4. The Depot Manager, Parkal Depot, Warangal Dist' 5. One CC to SRI G.SATISH BABU, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, (SC FOR TSRTC)' IOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies. (P BSK GJP I HIGH COURT DATED:28105t2025 I dS r4 ,r'15{li ,/ i' .; I 1t I lJE zrE > t)4.s r,.. - - .'"' ORDER WP.No.14604 of 2O1B DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (t- [y['s'