High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY l.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 792 oF 2025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 792 0F 2025 writ Appear under crause 'r5 of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 0210912024 in W.p.No.2 224 of 2021 on the fite of the High Court. Between: The Depot Manaoer. TSRTC, lbrahimpatnam Depot, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State - AND ...APPELLANT R. Shivanna, S/o late Chinna Naganna, Aged 51 years, Ex_Conductor, lBp^/ Depot, tbrahim'arnam. Ranga Rdddy iiisi;;t, cio,Fti lv". a9, ri"JJN"]ii, Alkapuri. Hydeiabad - SOO OiZ ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1OF 2 025 Petition undei section 15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 277 days in filing the present Writ Appeal. lA NO: 3 oF 202s Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order passed by the Learned Single judge in WP No.222 4 of 2021 dated 02 09 2024' pending disposal of the W.A No. /2025. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC Counsel for the Respondent: SRI JEERIPOTHULA SRtNIVAS The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THD HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KI'MAR SINGH AIYD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY I..4-No. I of 2o25 IN AND WRIT APPEAL No.792 of. 2O25 JIJDGMENT: eer the Hon,ble tte CrricJJltsrtce Sn Aporesh Kumar Stng,, Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appears ior the appellant

2. I.A.No. I of 2O2S is filed seeking condonation of delay of 277 days in preferring the instant appeal.

3. Heard leamed counsel for the appellant.

4. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.O9.2024 passed in W.p.No.2224 of 2O2L by the learned Writ Court whereby the award dated 05.06.2020 passed in I.D.No.9I of 2Ol7 was uphelcl. The said industrial dispute was raised under Section ZA(2) of the Industria_l Disputes Act, 1947 to set aside the removal order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the appellant and confirmed by the authorities and also for reinstatement, continuity of service, attendant : i I I I j l I I l I , I I t i I i l l i j I : l ! : I I .---l \ '\.. - {Il?:j* -r':* .r.;..-"1:.;yifi ' \r,. \ I 2 benefits with full back wages. The workman was proceeded against for the following charge: "For having collected Rs.15/- from a lady passenger at the boarding point itself who boarded in your bus at Lingampally and bound for Ibrahimpatnam (ex. Stages No.07 to 12 and you haYe issued luggage ticket of Rs.2/- only bearing No.TNA 154606 ar'Id you have failed to issue passenger ticket of Rs.lOl to her while you were performing duties on vehicle No AP-29 TA 0178 on 30.07.20I6 which constitutes misconcluct under Reg.28M)(a) and (x) of TSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963."

5. The iearned Labour Court I, Hyderabad. set aside the order of removal and directed reinstater-nent of the workman into service with continuity of semce, attendant benefits and full back wages. The operative portion of the impugned award at paragraph Nos.20 to 23 is extraclecl hereunder: "2O. Thus the passenger by name l,axmamtna, whose evidence was crucial to consider whether thc petitioner had issued passenger ticket of Rs.10/- denomination to her statecl during the enquiry that, the petitioner had given Lwo tickets to her, one for her alld the other for the Iuggage but as she did not observe, told the TTls that only one ticket was issued but the passenger who sat beside her gave the other ticket to her stating that she lost the ticket. When the TTIS also mentioned in the special report marked under Ex. M6 that the petitioner brought a ticket from a passenger marked with a red pen and asked the passenger La(Inamrna to show it as the ticket issuecl to her, it was their duty to verifu the number of passengers with that of the number tickets issued and passes to know the veracity of the statement of the passenger and thai of the peutioner. The checking officials also failed to '! .?. i I I I 1 I i i ? seize the ticket brought by the petitioner ticked with red pen, to veri8r the truth of their statement. Thev failed to check the bus cash and personal cash of the petitioner to prove their contention of misappropriation. In the absence of clinching evidence to prove the misconduct of the petitioner, the evidence of the passenger recorded during the enquiry probabalises the d&nse oT the petitioner tha? he issued two tickets to her. The TIMS r-eport marked under EX.M3 also supports the conteniion of the petitioner that he issued two tickets, one passenger ticket bearing no. 154605 of Rs. I0l- rienomination 1nd one luggage ticket bearing no. I54606 of Rs.2/- denomination from Lingampally to lbrahimpatnam, which could be of the passenger by name La_nnamma. 21. The enquiry officer without observing the sane, disbelieving the staternenI of the passenger La_rrnat nma as an afterthought, belie\.ing the eviclence of ttle TTI. holding the charge as proved against the petitioner appears to bi biased. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer withoul considering the objections of the petitioner on the enquiry report and without considering his explanation to the show cause notice of removal, issuing final proceedings removing him from service, appears to be improper. The other ,rfe.io. authorities also confirmng the orders of the respondent in removing the petitioner from ser-vice, by taking into consideration his past conduct, without considering the case in proper perspective is arbitrary arld harsh. 22. Hence, it is considered fit to set aside the removal order issued by the respondent dt. 16-12-2O16 marked under Ex. M22 and the respondent is directed to reinstate the peutioner into seryice with contiuuity of service, attendant benefits and full back wages. 23. In the result, the petition is allowed." I *

6. On the challenge made by the Management, the learned Writ Court refused to interfere with the impugned awurrd, inter alto- holding as under: '5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that at the time of -:::r*li 4 check itself, though the passenger has initiallv produced a ticket for Rs.2/ , subsequently, a ticket worth of Rs.1O/ was also been produced with red ink nrark. The authorities are of the opinion that the tickel was not issued by the respondent to the passenger. but it was issued to another passenger and that the report has been drafted by the jeeb driver E. Suresh and was attcsted by the co-passenger by name Raja Ram and service driver P. Raju. However, as observed by the l.a.bour Couft-I, the authorities have not counted the number of passengers in the bus. It is also rightly obsered that the checking officials failed to seize the ticket produced by the respondent ticked with red pen, to veri$ the truth of his statement. The findings of the Labour Court-l rn para 20 ar€ noL controverted by the petitionel corlloration witlr any evidcnce to the contrary.

6. In view of the same, this Court does nol fincl anv merit in the writ petition and the writ l)ctitio is accordj.ngly di.smissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 7 . The Management being aggrieved has preferred this instant appeal. The appeal suffers from delav of 277 days for corrdonation of which I.A.No.l ol 2025 has been filed. The only exTlanation worth its name is at paragraph 9 of the I.A.. which is extracted hereunder: "lt is submitted that this Hon'ble Corrrt passed orders on 02.09.2024 and the file was sent to the Standing Counsel for drafting writ appeal. Accordingl],. the file was sent to the Standing Counsel for drafting appeal, The Standing Counsel accordingly .lrafted the grounds of appeal and returned the file to the lau, department. Thereafter, fair copies together with material papers have been prepared and sent to the Standing Counsel for filing writ appeal. In the process there is a delay of _ days in filing wdt appeal and the same is neither willful nor wanton, but for the reasons erplained above. Unless this Hon'ble Court condones the delav ol I i 5 _ put to great hardship.', - days in filing the wdt appeal, the appellants wilt be

8. Learned counsel for the appeilant has made submissions on merits also and taken this Court to the Iindings of the learned Labour Court and also the learned Writ Court. He submits that though the employee has been reinstated, at least with regard to the quantum of. back wages this Court may consicler by interfering in the award. He submits that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the Management in preferring the appeal. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and taken note of his submissions both on merits and on the delay condonation application. There are consistent Iindings of fact by the learned tabour Court as upheld by the leamed Writ Court also on the alleged misconduct. 10. We are not persuaded by the submissions of the Iearned counsel for the appellant on merits that the findings of the learned Labour Court as upheld by the learned Writ Court suffers from any perversity in appreciation of evidence warranting inter{erence at this \ I t 1 i I I ':'i_ ,:l 6 stage. Apart from that, the Management has failecl to provrde any cogent explanation for an inordinate delay of 277 days in preferring the lnstant appeal. Therefore, we are not inciined to condone the delay of 277 days. I I. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed- Consequently, the writ appeal is also dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC UC] One CC to SRI JEERIPOTHULA SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies I I To, 1 2 3 ,BSR ,l HIGH COURT DATED: 2310712025 JUDGMENT l.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND WA.No.792 ol 2025 I ; I l .a\ 2 4 sEP z[fi . tl '\:] i.i r ':ii --r DISMISSING BOTH THE I.A & WA, WITHOUT COSTS \^t( [v'