The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supSrt of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as driver by suspending the suspersion. order dated 23.06.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Reigionrdents: SRI N.CHANDRA SHEKAR, i ) FOR TGSRTC The Court made thq following: ORDER ,.1 , THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION NO.2O532 OF 2O2S Seeking to declare the order of suspension dated 23.06.2025 vide Case No.Ol l2(5) 12025-MHBD issued by respondent No.2 placing the petitioner under suspension without therebeing any legal evidence on recor-d, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of principles o[ natura] justice as u,ell as Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the Constitution o[ [ndia, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2) Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 29 .05.2025, ri,hile the petitioner rvas operating the second trip of bus bearing No.TG 1720051 from Warangal to Mahabubabad Bus Depot at about 1645 hours at Warangal Bus Station/ Stand after boarding of the passengers, the conductor gave a signal to move the bus. Accordingly, the petitioner has reversed the bus and ) PK, J \\.0 20532 2O2s \ When started moving slorvly from the platlorm of the bus station. At that timc, one lad_r. passengcr has boarded the bus Iirr .l.horrur. she s,as infcrrrned l>-r, the co_passengers that the r,r s rl,as not going to Thorrur, she sr_rcldenlr. and abruptl1, jumpeci : I uu the bus and fell rrnder the bus irr the Bus Station, due to rr.]-ri . she sustained injuries to her leg. Immediatel,v, she ,"r,as sh f ccl to hospital. Therelore. no misconduct is committed br. tir_ petitioner and absolutell lhere is no negligencc on his part. IJr,,cver, basing on the report clated 20.06.2025 of the Joint Accicle:r Committee (ir_r short UAC'), u,herein, respondent No.2 herein is al,;r a member, the suspcnslon order dated 23.06 .2025 and also It: ch2pgs 5fis.1 dated 23.06 .2025 are issued to the peti irr.rer, n,ith a predetcrminecl mincl, opining that pimn lizcle cas:. Therefore, the rvhole action of thc respondents rs illt, 1al, invalid and estal;lished IS vitiated 31) It is lurther submitted that one Md. Ch deposed evidence belore the preliminary enquin ,,r ise, T[-[], has r fficer tl'rat the lady passenger, without informing the conductor .;umped from ::'rcl driver, has the bus and the mistake is on tl_re pa t ofsaid ladv_ Hou'ever, q,ithout properry appreciating the s ricl e'idence, l PK, J !{.p 20532 2025 respondent No.2, who is also a member of JAC, has placed the petitioner under suspcnsion vidc order dated 23.06.2025 contrary to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.4745 of 1999, dated

13.03.2003. Learned counsel has furthcr contended that as per clause-I1 of Circular No.PO 10/2002, dated 09.03.2002, of the respondent-Corporation, in case of accidents, drivers need not immediately be placed under suspension soonafter occurrence of ihe accicient, unless it is a case of death u'here the driver is found guilty of rash and negligent driving rcsulting in death and '"r'here the police prosecution is likel1 to rcsult in conviction. But, in case of the petitioner, there is no negligence on his part and he has not driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner" It is further contended that though respondent No. t has initiated disciplinary proceedrngs also against the conductor and issued charge sheet dated 23.06.2025, the respondents have suspended the petitioner alone selectively ieaving the concluctor, q'ho is also responsible for rhe incident occurred. Therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to lau', violative of principles of natural justice and amounts to discrimination. . , =. _.-.. tl .1 PH,.] !1p 20532-202S 4) Per contra. thc leamed Stancling Counsel I is sr-,l;mitted that on leceiltt of the inlormation cluring the second 1 _ p at 1645 hours, *'hrle the petitioIler u'as at warar-rgal bus statior r rd a-iter bozrrding of tl-re passe,gers, u,hile he *,as reversing tht. i,s lrom station prcrnises to mo\.c outside, one lady passengcr br i rcled the bus for traveling to Thorrur. But, when she realized tha tire bus u.as not goinq to Thorrur, sl-re attempted to alight from he [rus. Lt that pro.css. she *,c.t ur_rder the left rear t1.re of tl_rr rus ir,d rhe left tt rc ol thc bus ran over her left leg, due to u.hir j . slrc sustainecl se'cir: ir-rj.ries 1o her leg. Immediately, the ir_tjur..l u.its shilted to N{ah;rtmar Garclhi Memorial Hospital, Warangal. : tfor.rrration r,r.as givert to tlte Station Manager and the local polir c officials and a case in FIR No.2 16 /,2025 datcd 30.05.2025 has br :n registercd at Inthczargrr.j policc station, Warangal. Further, r:r )/.Otr.2025, the ladv r.i.as succurnbecl to injuries while undel-! ( ntg treatlxent. Learned Standing Counsel has contendecl that ttr,, JAC consisting of the Depot Manager of Mahabubabad and FIan:r r koncla Depots, convr:ned a meetiltg on 20.06.2025 at Warangal, r nd examined the preliminary trnquiry Reporl cla t ci submitted by thc Deputy Superintendent (Tr:rfficl. Mahabubabad thoroughly

17.06.2025 rf- :t ,.* ) PK, J wp-'2o532 2025 Depot, along with the evidcnce available on record' Basing on the said findings, the petitioner \\'as placed undcr suspension pending discipiinary action. Further tl-re JAC, after an independent and careful evaiuation of the material evidence, has concluded that a pnma facie case rvas established against the petitioner' It ts further contencled that though the passenger has alighted the bus u,ithout informing the driver and conductor' it is the primary responsibility of the driver to ensure safetl' of the passengers cluring boarding/ alighting and physical movcrnents of the bus s,ithin bus station and other traffic zone areas and the driver is expected to cautiously observe the passengers before rroving or reversing the bus. In the instant case, the petitionbr has lailed to clbsen,e the movements of the 1ac11' passenger, u,ho attemptcd to alight from the bus resulting in the unfortunate accident' Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the gravity ol negligence and past selwice record of the petitioner and based on the report of JAC, found that the petitioner \vas responsible for gross negligence in discharging his duties as a driver' Hence' the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner whiie piacing him under suspension, in terms of Circular No' PD-9 1 /9 1 6 PK, J \\ p 20.532 202; daled 21 Circu lars

10.I991 ar-rd follou,ing the proccclure cr r ternplatecl rn the contention o{. rh I petitioner that Thcreforc, the the: samc Depor u,zts part of the .IAC, has issti .d r hc or.cler ot corl trat.\- to thL. srtspension or.cier I s prcdetermined merel,v becaLtr,r N{alager, u,ho susircr-rsion is u,holl-\, misconceived, untenable ar r tnternal disciplir-ran, frame pyork of the Cor,o t lon. Lc-arnccl Standing Cour.rsel has further submitted that r]r,: Iintluiry'Officer has concludccl tl-rc e nqulry and submitted tirr: claterd 23.()9.21)25 holdir_rg tl_rat the charges are pr:.ccl therc arc r.ro mcr.its in tlte dismissed u'rrt petition and the s:lr: is liable to be Thercfore ,nq tt I n' Ilepo r t 5) l'I-ris Cou r.t has taken note of the submrs: ions rrade respc<:tirre coun scl a.cJ lterusccl the material on rC (l( rt al \\'as p jaced 6) r\s can b<. seen fiom the record, the petitior :r under susltcnsior.r vic]e impugned order dated ?, deparrnrentai pr-oceeclinrgs wer() initiated against t 1 r respon d en t No. :2 Admittedl-v, the accident r.,.a s Statior-r on 29.O5.2O2S at about i6.1 , hours rr hile wits reversing the bus from station rremises and Warangal Bus the pcLitione r occuned at petitioner b_r,

06. o625 .,r-,0 / 1 i,K, J 1vp 20532 2025 moving outside of the bus station, s'hich 1ed to death of that lady passenger. Therefore, the petitioner u'as placed under suspension basing on the Joint Acciclent Committee Report dated 20 06'2025 and disciplinary proceedings u'cre initiated against him vide irnpugned proceedings. Further, a perusal of the report dated

20.06.2025revealsthattheCommitteehasconcludedthata.llthe tl-rree persons i.e. driver, conductor and ladl' passellger are responsible for the accident Further, during the course of ?rrguments, the learned Stancling Counsel has placed belore this Court a copy of the Enquiry Report dated 23 '09 '2025 Relevant portion of the said report reads as under: "On carelul examination of all rccords, it is evident that the lady passcngcr's orvn negligencc in jumping from thc bus u'ithout infonnirrg thc creu, u'as the primar-a cause of the mishap' Holvevcr, as per the duties prescribed undcr the TGSRTC regulations, tltc driver is bound to cxcrcise utmost care at-rd ci]u [ion u'hile moving the bus inside bus s[atiorl premises and thc conducLor is required to remain at thc door until the vehiclc rnovcs out to prevent any unsafe alighting by passengers ln this case. thc driver failed to anticipate passcngcr movement and the conductor failed to discharge her responsibility at the door' Therefore, the accident is attributable to the ncgligence of all three - the passenger, the driver, and the conductor'" 8 PK, J wp 2O.32-2O)S 7) The said rel;ort reveals that all the three :r:.r responsible for the alleged accrd<,nt occurrcd. [n sltiteof the samt . pcLjl.ioner alonc is placed under sr-rspension lcaving the conductor ,r.hich arnoltnts to discrimination :rncl selectivc suspensior_r anc _- . .- i qrpcjrrsloll and t ll I san)e is bad in ]a$_. B) Ir is rvc.ll settled principle of lau., r+ ol the Constir ution of Inclia, that :rrnone similar.l-r, sit Lrated incliviclLlals rs of judgrnents. tltc- IJon.blc Apcx Court conslslcntl-v helcl that thc sslc61i1,s indivicluals involved in thc samc: retaininH olhr,r.s rn sor|icr.. canrr discrimrnation :rrtrl a rbirr-an, treat ment. enshri nr ,r under Ar.ticle discrimini I I r-\, treatrncnt rmpcrmissil.l In a ca iena as well as : Lis rllourt lras suspension o onc or. nlore ide;tts, rvlrile as I antounts to perm i tted, set of allegations/ irr ot be I l I 9l Here, it is Supreme Court / el('\ alt t [() l11 K.Sukhend.ar ref('r to the decision ol thc Hon,ble Reddg u. stoltl- of Andhra Pradeshj u.herein it uas held as under: '7. Another vitirl [:rct u.ltich h criminal case a nLrrnbcr ol senior appeliant. mar be fi,unJ rrrr olvcrj, I (t999) 6 SCC 2-s7 as come on record is t,tat in the IAS officers, even scr:or lo the but nothing positivn , r dclinire 9 PK, J wp 20532 202) can be said as yet as the investigation is tikely to take timc ' The matter is pending \,l'ith lhe police since 1'-12-1996 rvhen the FIR was lodged at Anakapallil Police Station Thc investigation has nol l;cen complcted alrhough about two 'rnd-a-hatf years hil'e passcd. Wc do not knou' horv long it will take to complele tl)e invcstigation. That bc so, the ofllcer o[ thc rank o[ the appellz'rnt' against rvhom it has noq' come out that the disciplinarv proccecltngs arc not contemplatecl' cannot be kept undcr suspctLsion lor an incicfinite pcriod' particularly in a situation \\.hcrc maY more scnior ofltcers may ultilnately bc found involvccl' bLLl thc appcllant alonc has been placcd under suspension The Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. lt cannot be permitted to place an officer under suspcnsion just to exhibit and fcign that action against thc officcrs. irrespective ol their higher status ln the service hierarchl" ',r,ou Id be takc l-1. " (e mPhasis adcled) I0) ln vierv o[ the abovc settled proposition of lau" this Courl is of the vieri' that tlle impugned suspension order dated 23 '06 '2025 is not sustainable on the ground of selective suspension and therefore liable to be set aside' 1 i ) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned suspct-tsion orcler dated 23 06 '2025 is set aside Further' the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into servlce PK, .J wp 2r)S32 202; forthrr-ith. Hou,ever, this orcler does not preclutc e the authorities proceccl ir-rg furtl-rer in pursuance to the En<1 rin, Repor_t clatecl fro n.r 23 0q 2025. s,trictl_r in accor.d:rncc u.ith larv NliscelLrneorrs lretitions penciins. if any, s I rll stand closecl No costs //TRUE COPY// S J .P.PONNA KRISHNA SSISTANT REGISTRAR I '\'- ---- \ SECTION OFFICER a n Telangana Slate d

1. The i/ice Chairman and N/anaging Director Bus B Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderaba J 20.

2. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Ivlababubabad Depot, \ ehabubabad District 3. One CC b SRI A K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate [(i:)UCl 4 One CC to SRI N CHANDRASHEKAR, SC FORTGSiIC [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies To PSK. PMK ==---_=. -!- 1t\E SIAT6 ? 1 NoI 1u6 t/" ii',' li:) ir -l \' ':i, -k. '\* )SSFA: j--. ----_ \ {7z ),/ * HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ORDER WP.No.2O532 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u lr-