High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedtoissueaWritororderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof writofmandamusdeclaringthattheactionofthe3rdrespondenthereinin imposingthepunishmentofdefermentofpetitionerannualincrementforaperiod of two ylars with cumulative effect and for recovery of Rs.1,000i- is bad arbitrary and illegal by setting aside the final order No.P4l187(90)/2016-lvYP-l dt.}t12l2O17 of the 3rd respondent herein and consequential procs.dt.2519/2018 ofthe2ndrespondenthereinandconsequentlydirecttherespondentsnotto effect the said Punishment Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER t, L w7 HIf,N'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITI ON No.268O1 of 202L ORDER: Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2, The petitioner aooroached the Court seekinq r er as under "...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the 3'd respondent herein in imposing the punishment of deferment of petitioner annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and for recovery of Rs.1,000/ is bad arbitrary and illegal by setting aside the final order No.P4llB7(90)/201.6-MYP-I, dt a/t2l2Or7 of the 3'd respondent herein and consequential procs, dt 25/9l2OlB of the 2nd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents not to effect the said punishment and pass... "

3. When the matter as taken up for hearinq, learned counsel aDDea rino on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subiect issue in the present writ Detition is squarelv covered bv the order of this Court dated

30.L2.2O22 oassed in W.P. No.15O59 of 2OOB and the l SN. I re nt w.P.No. 2672 rder of his ourt da d1 .o7.2024 as din 4 at 201.9 and the rder dated 16. 9.2025 f the aid in W.P . No.1 39 f2 2Lo he asr s rde da d3 .t2.2022 as ed in P. No.1 9of

2008. 4 The Releva nt dated30 -r.2.2022 Das ortlon oft heorder of this Court sed inW. P. No . 15059 of 2OO8 is extr ct he und r "Taking into consideration the facts and circumstancei of the case and also the length of rendered by the petitioner, this Court deems it ;;;;"; il ;";;;;;;;to moditv the quantum of punishment of ;i;;;;;" of annrut grade increment without cumulative ;;fJ;r-f; a period 6f t*o v"utt' However' it is, made clear that this modification of punishment shall rave ;ffect onlv from the date of passins of this ;;;rdl;;" Lrder and the petitioner shall not be entitled to,claim in" ron"tu.v benefits for the period prior to passing of this order ".

5. Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC' appearlng on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submissionmadebythelearnedcounselappearingon behalf of the Petitioner' ) s\. J

6. fn view of the said submissions made by both the learned counsel, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated gO.tZ.2O22 passed in W,p. No. 15O59 of 2OOg. There shafl be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _ The Hon'ble SRt APARESH KUMAR SiNGH, it That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth Day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five.' " Ct i"f .lr.tice on this To, 1 2 The Managing Director, Telangana S Bhavan, lMusheerabad, T.S. The Regional Manager. TSRTC, Secunderabad Secunderabad. T.S. //TRUE COPY// ^ ISD/'B.REKHARANI fl\{srarur REGtsTRAR \ i\ \ sEroN oFFrcER U tate Road Transport Corporation, Bus Region at JBS, picket,

3. The Depot fVlanager, TSRTC, Miyapur-l Bus Depot, Hyderabad, T.S 4. The Depot [\4anager, ISRTC, Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Wanaparthy District,

5. One CC to SRt P.VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC to SRt R ANURAG, SC FOR ISRTC [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies (A[ong with the copy of order dated 30.12.2022, in W.p.No.15059 of 2008) BSR PVLw ! HIGH COURT DATED: 2410912025 CC TODAY- ORDER WP.No.26801 of 2021 a-- + HE STArc ^ ?.I 0[l tG z C) _x * * D Est--/ -..() ;!cY' :;' i;r ' PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .N *#-o \LV- \ o -,\ - -./ -<o\q /^a\' 1 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO W.P.No.1 5059 0F 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri P. -Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinrvas, Iearnecl Standing ' Co unsel for the respondents' Corporatlon This writ petition is hled under Article 226 ol Constitution of 2. India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to dcclarc thc action of the respondents in imposing the punishmcnt o[ reclucing thc petitioner's basic pay by two incremental stagcs r'vith curnulative effect' and treating the suspension period as 'not ot-t drrtY" as bad' arbitrary' illegal, and disproportionate and consequentlv to se1 aside the Office order No. 02lg5(27) lgg-DVK, datcd 1 1 02 2000 pzrsscd' by l"t respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that thc petitioncr r'vas appointed as a "Conductor" in the respondents' Corporation- On 01 08' 1999 rvhile he rvas performing his duties en route Devarakoncla to Pogilla' a check was conducted at Stage No.16 (PoSillai Ourit''g the check' the inspection staff of the Corporation notir:ed cash aud ticket irregularities. Subsequently, a chargc nremo clated O 1 O8 1999 was issued to the petitioner for the aforesaid lapses Thcreupon the petitioner had submitted his explalration but tlle I espondents' Corporation has not issued any repty Subscquentl'v, the respondents' 2 Corporarion lrad issuccl chargc shcet dateci 24.09.1999 along rvith suspelrsio;r orc{er stating that the petitioner failed tc collect ticket farc from lras;sengers. The petitioncr submittecl cxplanatron on 29.Og lggg to the abcvc said charrgc sheet. Later, the responrlents, Corporation conductr,d an enquiry and passed linal order No.02/95 (2 7)/gfl -DVK. dated t 1.02.2000 by the 1", respondent imposing punishnrent ol. u,ithhold;r-rg o[ annual rncrcment for a period cf two vears witlr cumulati.,,e eflecl ancl the periocl of suspension is lr-eated as ,not duty', Thcreafter, the pctitioner prcferred apperrl bcfore the 2,.r respondcnt ott O4-O7.2OO7. Later the 2"d respondent rejected l-ris appeal orr 2q.Oa.2OO7 as time barred, aftcr lapse of sevcn years Again rhc petitioner f ed a Review petition on ot.0!r.2o07 bcrbre the Region:rl l"ranagcr, ApsRTC, Nalgonda and the sarne was rciected

4. 'ltrc lt,ar-ned that t he Flnquity connsel lbr the petitioncr vehcrLently conlcndcd Officer without considering the explanatton submitted l;rr thc petitioner to the charge sheet, submrtted the cnquiry rcport. Llc further contended that at the time ol cl,reckrng, [rvo r)assengef'( ha'e give, staterne.ts that they have not tirken tickeLs a.cl not paid tLrc bus thrc. Hence, the ticket fare was collcctecl frorn the passcngcrs bv tl.re TTI and also imposed a hne of Rs.5O/ . He frtrther contcr]clecl Lhilt otitcr tw.o passengers also havc givcn statelncnts Lhat the.y havc bo:rrrlcd the top of the bus while the bus was ln slow rDotion \r'hen the slleep catlre was crossing before the bLls wrlrlout the / 3 knowledge of the petitioner as rvell as driver of the bus and they have not paid ticket fare and collected the tickets from the petitioner. The above said statements of the passengers itself would establish that therc was no intention of misappropriation of any amounts and the petitioner has not caused any loss to the responclents' Corporation. The 1st respondent without considering the above said aspects passed the impugned order imposing punishment lvithholding of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a malor punishment though the petitioner has not committed any m isapProp riatro n rvhile discharging his lawful duties as a Conductor.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents' Corporation after following the duc procedure contemplated under the Regulations and after condlrctins enquiry by duly appointing an Enquiry Ofhcer and that apart considered the explanation of the petitioner as well as the findings of thc trnquiry Officer, impugned order was passed on 11.02.2000; and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by I't respondent.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, apparently, the petitioner had submittcd his explanation to the charge sheet for the charges levelled against him. Thc pctitioner has emphatically contended that at the time of cl-rcckrng, trvo passengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets and not pairl the bus fare and other two passenllers havc also given )\ 4 sratenle.ts rhat they have boardccr the top of thc bus while the bus rvas in slow rnotion when the sheep cattle was crossing before the bus rvithoLrt the knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus al)d frlrt,'lcr statcd that they i-rave not paid ticket far.: and collected the tickets fi-ortr tllc petitioners. The learned counsel for the pctitioner righll,y conlr:ncled that the respondents, Corporatron rvithout considering tlte statements givcn by the passengers and without properl_v,lonsidering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge shcet, p.rssed the impugned order againsr the doctrine of proportioiralit-\, basing on the report submitted by tbe tinquiry Officer rmposed 1;unrshrnent of withholding annual grade tncrements for a pcriod of f\\:o vears r.vith curnulativc effect. ,l.he respondents, Corporation has failecl to establish that the act of thc petitioner was rntcntional in not issuing thc ticl(ets to the passengcrs and he played a fraud lo causc colossal financial loss to tJre respondents, Corporation exr:hequer but it amounts to only negligence on the part of the petit ioner. ht such circumstances, the respondents, Corporation ought no( to have imposed punishment; namely, stoppage of rncremcnts lor a period of two years with cumulative etfect, whicl,r, in the considc rcd o1;inion of this Court is a major punishrnent. 7 f .ki.g ir-rto consiaeration of the facts and circurlstances of thc case and alsrt thc length of servrcc rendered by thc petitioner. this Court deen.ls Lt Irt and proper to modify the quantunt of punishment of 7 5 stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative eflecf for a ! pcrioLl of two yetrrs. However, it is rntrde clear th;rt this rnodification of punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to cl.lim the monetary bcneflts lor thc period prior to passing of ttris order.

8. Subject to the above modification, the writ petition 1S partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Misccllaneous petitions, if any, pending rn this wrlt pctition, shall stand closed Dated: 30.12.2022 JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO