Md. Hussain v. Bus Bhavan RTC X Roads, Hyderabad

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 pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order bearing Procs. No. PA/19(05)/18-RM.MBNR dt' 19-3- 2018 rejecting the Review petition filed against the orders passed by the 3rd respondentdt. 6-5-2016 bearing No. 02/95(3S)12016-Dy.CTM MBNR, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. RAJESH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION 0.20616 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: f "fo rssue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of ,Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order bearing Procs. No. PA/19(05)/18- RM:MBNR dt. 19-3-2018 rejeding the Review petition filed against the orders passed by the 3rd respondent dt. 6-5-2016 bearing No. 02/9s(38)/2016-Dy.CTM: MBNR, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is squarely covered by the order dated 03.10.2018 in writ petition No.20089 of 2009 passed by this Court.

3. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 03.10.2018 in writ petition No.20089 of 2009. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications. pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stan( closed. sd- MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Managing Bhavan RTC X 2. The Re District. Director,Telang ana State Road Roads, Hyderab ad. gional Manager, TSRTC , Mahabubnagar R

3. The Deputy Ch'ref Traffic Managrer, TSRTC Mahab sport Corporation, Bus egion, Mahabubnager ubnagar Region, Mahabubnaoar District.

4. The Depot ltianager, TSRTC Narayanpet Depot, Mahabubnagar District. 5. One CC to SRl. G. RAJESH, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRl. R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of W.P. No. 20089 of 2009 dated 03.'10.2018) o BM PVL HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 ORDER WP.No.20616 of 2018 ( .t !..'o Ll s iA ,t .-,\ 23 [uB 2$6 { * t) L:Stl '.. rC\'r DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS THE HON'BTE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVITI WRIT PETITION No.20089 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief " For the reosons stoted in the occomponying offidovii ihe petitioner herein proys thot this Hon'ble Court moy be pleosed to issue o writ, order or directions more in the noture of writ of Mondomus decloring the proceedings of the 2no respondent No.PAl]9(21)/08- RM(MB) d1.22.7.2008 insofor os ogoinst io the petitioner in reduction of poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors with cumulotive effect ond deniol of continuity of service ond other benefits os illegol, orbitrory ond controry to the focts of the cose ond further direct the respondents herein to gront oll benefits including two reduced increments with continuity of service ond ottendont benefits, orreors ond bock woges ond poss such other order or orders in the interest of justice os otherwise the petitioner moy suffer ineporoble loss ond hordship." Heord Sri P.Govindo Rojulu, leorned counsel for the petitioner ond Sri B.Moyur Reddy,, leorned stonding counsel for the respondent corporolion. 2 It hos been contended by the petitioner thot he wos oppointed os Driver in the respondent corporotion in the yeor

1996. While he wos dischorging his duties on 2.1 .2007 ot Nogor Kurnool depot, the respondent corporolion hod issued o chorge sheet olleging thot the vehicle beoring No.AP l0Z 7469 wos driven by him in rosh ond negligent monner, which coused occident ot Telkopolly with o cycle ond the soid oct of the petitioner wos construed os misconduct ond conducted regulor deportmentol enquiry ond ofter conducling regulor deportmentol enquiry, he wos removed from service vide orders doted 10.7.2007 for the proven misconduct. The petitioner hod preferred on oppeol ond the some wos dismissed. Thereofter, the petitioner hod preferred revision before lhe 2nd respondent- Regionol Monoger, APSRTC ond the 2no respondent vide orders doled 22.7.2008 hod modified the punishment of removol to thot of reduction of his poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors with cumulotive effecl. Chollenging lhe some, the present writ pelition is filed It hos been contended by the leorned counsel for the petiiioner thot the modified punishment of removol to thot of reduction of poy of the petitioner by two incrementol stoges for J o period of two yeors with cumulotive effect is too horsh. Leorned counsel further contended thot the revisionol outhority ought to hove token o lenieni view ond imposed o punishment of reduction of poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors without cumulotive effect. Leorned slonding counsel for the respondent corporoiion hod contended thot the chorge fromed ogoinst the petitioner is very serious in noture ond the disciplinory outhority hod imposed the punishmeni of removol for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. Leorned stonding counsel further coniended thot the revisionol outhority hod token o lenient view ond no further lenient view con be token ond the writ petition is lioble to be dismissed. This Court hoving considered lhe submissions mode by both the porties is of the considered view thot revisionol outhority ought to hove imposed of reduction of poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors withoui cumulotive effect insteod of with cumulotive effect. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed by the revisionol outhority is modified to thot of reduction of poy by two 4 incrementol sloges for o period of two yeors without cumulotive effect insteod of with cumulotive effect Accordingly. the Writ Petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed by the revisionol outhority to thot of reduction of poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors without cumuloiive effect. ll is mode cleor thot the obove modified punishment is without ony monetory benefits. No order os to costs Miscelloneous petitions pending, if ony, sholl stond closed. Dote:03/10/2018 Lkv ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVItI, J