✦ High Court of India · 21 Apr 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 21 Apr 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
21 Apr 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,219 words

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER 7 I I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHET:MAPAKA WRIT PETITIO N No.2O586 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the follow ng relief: "to issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particulaily one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondenr in issuing the impugned order bea-ing Procs. No. PA/19(04)/18- RM:MBNR dt. 19-3-2018 rejecting the Review petilion filed against the orders passed by the 3rd respondent dt. 24-8-2017 bea-ing No. 01/219(85)/2017- DVMN:MBly'R as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust )nd consequently set aside the same, and to pass such other order or orders as lhis Hon'ble Court may deem fit and prcper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. When the matter is taken up for hi:aring, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the is:;ue is squarely covered by the order dated 03.10.2018 ir writ petition No.20089 of 2009 passed by this Court.

3. Having regard to the submissions m;rde by learned counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 03.1C.2018 in writ petition No.20089 of 2009. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SE ON OFFICER To, 1 .) 3 4 The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Bus Bhavan RTC X Roads, Hyderabad- Ihe Regional Manager, TSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar District. The Divisional Manager, TSRTC lvlahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar District. The De:not Manager, TSRTC Gadwal Depot, Ivlahabubnagar District. One CC to SRl. G. RAJESH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. R. ANURAG ,(SC FoR TSRTC) IOPUCI Two CD Copies t) 7 (Along with a annex copy of W.P. No.20089 of 2009, dated 03.10.2018) M JP € HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 ORDER WP.No.20586 of 2018 //'- , I rii J ]., "e 15 sEP 205 a ',, li o €spr - .7i/ -, \, -2, t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ L THE HON'BtE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETIIIO N No.20089 of 2009 ORDER: This wrii petition is filed seeking the following relief: "For the reosons sloted in the occomponying offidovit lhe petitioner herein proys thot this Hon'ble Court moy be pleosed to issue o writ, order or direciions more in the noture of writ of Mondomus decloring the proceedings of the 2nd respondenl No.PAi 19(21)/08- RM(MB) d1.22.7.2008 insofor os ogoinst 1o 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 benefils including two reduced incremenls with continuity of service ond oitendont benefits, orreors ond bock woges ond poss such other order or orders in the interest of justice os otherwise the petitioner moy suffer irreporoble loss ond hordship." Heord Sri P.Govindo Rolulu, leorned counsel for the petitioner ond Sri B.Moyur Reddy.. leorned stonding counsel for the respondent corporotion. 2 It h,rs been contended by the petitioner thot he wos oppointecl os Driver in the respondent corporoti tn in the yeor

1996. While he wos dischorging his duties on 2.1 .2007 ot Nogor Kurnool depot, lhe respondenl corporotion hod is;ued o chorge sheet olleging lhot the vehicle beoring No.AP IOZ 7469 wos driven by him in rosh ond negligenl monner. ,vhich coused occident ot Telkopolly with o cycle ond the scrid oct of the petitioner wos construed os misconducl ond con<lucted regulor deportmerlol enquiry ond ofter condu( ling regulor deportmeo'tol enquiry, he wos removed from serv ce vide orders doted ,|0.,2.2002 for the proven misconduct. The cetitioner hod prefened on oppeol ond the some wos dismissr:d. Thereofter, the petitioner hod preferred revision before the 2,,,rrespondent Regionol ^Aonoger, APSRTC ond the 2nd responde nt vide orders doled 22.7.2008 hod modified the punishment of rcntovol io thot of reduction of his poy by two incrementol stoges or o period of two yeors with cumulotive effecl. Chollenging lre some, the present writ petition is filed. It hos been contended by the leorned c()unsel for the petitioner thot the modified punishment of removol to thot of reduction r:f poy of ihe petitioner by two incremerlol sloges for J o period of two yeors wilh cumulotive effect is loo horsh. Leorned counsel further contended lhot the revisionol outhority ought to hove token o lenient view ond imposed o punishment of reduction of poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors wilhout cumulotive effect. Leorned stonding counsel for the respondent corporolion hod contended thot the chorge fromed ogoinst the petitioner is very serious in noture ond ihe disciplinory outhority hod imposed the punishment of removol for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. Leorned stonding counsel fudher contended thot the revisionol oulhorily 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 bolh the porties is of the considered view thot revisionol outhority ought to hove imposed of reduction of poy by two incrementol sloges for o period of two yeors wilhoul cumulolive effecl 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 incremenlol stoges for o period of two yeors withoul cumulotive effect insleod of wiih cumulotive effect Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of modifying the punishmerrt imposed by the revisionol outhoriiy to ihol of reduction of poy by two incrementol stoges for c period of two yeors with,cut cumulotive effeci. lt is mode cleor llot the obove modified punishment is without ony monetory ber eflts. No order os lo costs. Miscelloneous petilions pending, if ony, sholl stond closed. Dote:03/10/2018 Lkv ABHINAND KUI,IAR SHAVItI, J

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments