High Court · 2025

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWTruTY TIVI PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO :20682 OF 2018 Between: Smt. R.Deepa Rani, W/o Rajeshwar, aged about 31 years, occ Conductor, E.No. 235030 rlo 44-730t29, Adarsh Nagar' Bollaram R' R' District' ...PETITIONER AND

1. Telangana State Road Transport corporation, Rep. by its Vice chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad' Hyderabad

2. The Divisional Manager, Secunderabad Division, Secunerabad' 3. The Depot Manager, Contonment Depot, Cantonment, SecuMerabad' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot 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 ihe nature of Writ of Mandamur, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two v.ro *itr, cumulative vide procs. No. pA/19 (E\t20o4t2o14 DVM-SD dt. 20-1 1- 'zolq ^t being illegal, arbitrary and un.iust and consequently set aside the same by directing i-he r6spondent io restore the increments and pay arrears to the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. RAJESH Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI N. PRAVEEN REDOY (sc FoR TGSRTC -ZONE-1 ) The Court made the following: ORDER W HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.2 682 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: I { "to 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 imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative vide procs. e. pA/19 (E)/2004/2014 DVM-SD dt. 20_ 11-2014 as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondent to restore the increments and pay arrears to the petitioner, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hori'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 03.10.2019 in writ petition No.20089 of 2009 passed by this Court.

3. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective pafties, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 03.10.201g in writ petition No.20089 of 2009. No costs. -\t' Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending' if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD E UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER State Road Transport To,

1. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director Telanga

2. 3. t

5. 6. (A Corooration. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. The Divisional Manager, Secunderabad Division' Secunei'abad. The Depot Manager,-Contonment Depot, Cantonment, Secunderabad. one cc to sRl. G. RAJESH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. N. PRAVEEN REDDY (SC FOR TGSRTC -ZONE-1 ) [OPUCI Two CD Copies long with a copy of W.P. No. 20089 of 2009 dated 03.10.2018) BM G.tp HIGH COURT DATED:2110412025 o lrlt 5r4r.i ( o^ :'f c o 10 tu8 20[ s Dr'- -\) -, r z/' ,. I / ORDER WP.No.20682 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS l*lvf io"lA IHE HON'BtE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVITI WRIT PEIITIO N No.20089 of2009 ORDER: This writ pelition is filed seeking the following relief: "For the reosons stoted in the occomponying offidovit the 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 ihe proceedings of the 2no respondent No.PAl19(21)/08- RM(MB) dt.22.7.2008 insofor os ogoinst to 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, orbiirory ond controry to the f octs of the cose ond f urther direct the respondents herein lo gront oll benefits including two reduced increments with continuity of service ond ottendonl benefits, oneors ond bock woges ond poss such olher order or orders in the interest of iustice os otherwise the petitioner moy suffer irreporoble loss ond hordshiP." Heord Sri P.Govindo Rojulu, leorned counsel folthe petitioner ond Sri B.Moyur Reddy., leorned stonding counsel for the respondent corporotion. 2 It hos been contended by the petitioner thot he wos oppoinied os Driver in lhe respondent corporotion in the yeor

1996. While he wos dischorging his duties on 2.1 .2007 ot Nogor Kurnool depot, the respondeni corporotion hod issued o chorge sheet olleging thot the vehicle beoring No.AP 102 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 conducting regulor deportmentol enquiry, he wos removed from service vide orders doted 10./.2007 for the proven misconduct. The petitioner hod preferred on oppeol ond the some wos dismissed. Thereofter, the petitioner hod preferred revision before the 2nd respondent- Regionol Monoger, APSRTC ond the 2nd respondent vide orders doted 22.7.2008 hod modified the punishment of removol to thot of reduclion of his poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors with cumulotive effect. Chollenging the some, the present writ petition is filed. ll hos been contended by the leorned counsel for the peiitioner thot the modified punishment of removol to thot of reduction of poy of the petitioner by two incrementol stoges for J o period of l'wo yeors with cumulotive effect is loo horsh. Leorned counsel further conlended thot the revisionol outhority ought to hove ioken o lenient view ond imposed o punishment of reduction of poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors without cumulotive effect. Leorned stonding 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 punishment of removol for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. Leorned stonding counsel fudher contended f hot the revisionol outhority hod token o lenient view ond no further lenient view con be token ond the wril petition is lioble to be dismissed. This Coud hoving considered the submissions mode by both the porties is of the considered view thol revisionol outhority ought to hove imposed of reductlon of poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors without cumulotive effect insteod of with cumulotive effect. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed by the revisionol ouihority is modified to thot of reduction of poy by two 4 incremenlol stoges 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 outhorily to thot of reduction of poy by two incrementol stoges for o period of two yeors withouf cumulotive effect. lt is mode cleor thot the obove modified punishment is without ony monetory benefits. No order os to costs Miscelloneous petitions pending, if ony, sholl siond closed. Dote: 03/10/20'18 Lkv ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J