The High Court · 2025

I,! : I Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances staterd in the affidavit filed in support of the petit6n, the High Court may Oe pleasirJ io direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits lo the petitioner Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. K' JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NIZAMPUR CHANDRA SEKHAR (sc FoR rsRrc) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT Iil ll z. HON'BLE SI(IIUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHA\/ILI AND HON'BI-I| SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHI]TTY WRIT APPEAL No.1121 of 2024 IUDGMENT: (ner t,on'ble Si lustice Inxmi Narayana Alishetty) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orderr pas:;ed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25662 of 2024, dated

01.05.2024

2. Heard Sri A K Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Nizampur Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel ior TSRTC appearing for respc,ndent Nos.1 to 3

3. 'fhe facts oi thc'case, in nutshell, are that on the intervening night of 27/28.07.2013 ttreft of bus cash to the tune of Rs.32,02,t\76/- took place from tht, ma n cash chest of Hanmakonda Bus Depot while the appellant rr'as rn the possession of the keys of the cash chest, r.'hich the appeltant along l'rtl't the other two employees has ex.changed among themselves. Siubseclucntly, an amount of Rs.25,70,276/ - was recovered from a stationccl l',us in the shed attached to the Hann-ral<onc1a bus

4. [n the prelirninarl' inquiry conducted by the responderrts, the cash clrcst r,,'as fotr rtl intact, and the keys were in the posse's;ior-r of the 2 AKS,J & LNA-I WA No.1l2l of 2021 appellant. A regular inquiry was conducted, and the appellant, "a"qlti with the other two/ were placed under suspension as there wa$ negligence and irresponsibility on the part of the appellant and thd othel two persons. Accordingly, after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant and considering the reply, orders of punishment were passed

5. Aggrieved by the said removal orders, all three, including the appellant, have approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.25662 of 2013, - 19882 and 37978 of 2014, respectively, and the learned single )udge was pteased to dismiss the said writ petitions vide common order dated

07.05.2024 Aggrieved by the order dated 0L.05.2024 of the learned singte Judge, the appellant filed the Present Writ Appeal 6 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order dated 0^1.05.2024 of the learned single Judge is ex facie illegal as the learned Singte Judge ought to have considered the appellant's unique grounds, inctuding the incorrect address used by the Corporation, the appellant's police custody and medical issues preventing participation, and lack of reasonable opportunity to defend during the ex parte inquiry 7 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was on weekly otf on 27.01,.2013 and the keys were handed over to him' /, ) A f.S.J & LNA:|-- WA No.l l2) of2021 by the Assist,ant Depot Clerk on being asked by the Dr:pot Clerk without any r€:quest of his or any authorization of the superiors. Hence; all three persons n'ere made responsible for the theft

8. Learned corrnsel f urther submitted that learned si egle Judgt: ought to h ave c onsidered that the appellant, with 2'i years oi unblemished ser\r ce, was unfairly penalized for negligenc,e based orr - unsubstantia ted charges and assumptions, while other :esponsiblrr parties, i.e., Depot Manager and Security Officer, were, not held accountable. I-{e f r rther submitted that, despite recovr:ring rnost of thc theft amounl. ancl rro substantial loss to the Corporation, his retirement benefits were unlustlv rvithheld, ignoring the closure of the criminal case and the pal,nrcnt macle on moral responsibility and finally, prayed to set asicle thr. mpusned order, dated 0L.05.2024, passed by thc i learnecl singlc Iuc11;e anci allorv the Writ Appeal. 9 Learnetl Stancling Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to l] - had submitterl that the learned single Judge has rightly appreciated thc facts by holding that the appellant along with the other tn'o failed tci explain l'rort, Rs.2i 70,276/ - of the stolen Rs.32,02,8761'- was recoveretl from a bus, tlesp ite the cash chest being intact and kerys IN thrt possession of thc appcllant and two other employees. Iheir .,"gtig"n.lr a n 4 AKS J & LNA.J w,4 No 2t of2021 and irresponsible handring of keys indicate a failure to safeguard the cash. warranting no leniency. It is further contended that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Considera tion: 10. From the factual matrix of the case and the materiar submitted, it can be seen that the respondents have ensured in alr ways to serve the appellant with the notices of inquiry by sending them via RpAD and affixing them on the notice board. As per the report of the inquiry officer, a detailed inquiry was conducted, statements were recorded, and the delinquent officers were allowed to cross-qramine to defend the case. Hence, the principles of natural justice were followed by the respondents in the case of the appellant.

11. Further, the appellant, along with two others, exchanged the keys of the cash chest among themselves, at their convenience, without informing the superiors. In furtherance of this, the act of the appellant and the other two in exchanging the key without the permission of the superior depicts their irresponsible attitude towards their duty. Hence, the Lcarned Single Judge was correct in holding that, though the amount to the tune of Rs.25,70,276/- was recovered, that itself cannot be a grour-rd to take the lenient view against the appettant and others. 5 AKS,J&LNI::-. wA No I l2l of2(,:,

12. From tl-re Inaterial placed record, it is inferred that 'lffiil r appellant and the other two employees failed in their rluty to safeguard the cash chest. anrl because of which, the theft has taken place. Hencrt, the learned single Judge was right in holding tha t, the whole chain ef- - ,|11 events revea led ttre carelessness of the appellants in discharging their ..t duties, hence the appellant, along with the other tu,o, was the righl person to expJain the theft of cash as the chest was unbroken and tild key was in their possession. It is also evident that the appellant failed [irt offer a convin<:ing explanation or clarification for the theft ot chest cash when the kev was in his possession. l''i

13. The main crntention of the appellant is that the inquiry wat, :.r I conducted ex-pnrtt ar-rcl the principles of nafural justice were nel: followed while r:ontlucting the inquiry. In furtherance of this, tliqe - leamed counsel for the appellarrt has placed reliance on the judgmentlr of the Supreme (-,rurt in the case of Auil Kumar o, Presiding OfficgL_ and othersl u'herr:in it w,as held that a reasoned enquirv report ilr i t: . essential, where ihe incluirr. results in loss of livelihooci; In LL.V. Bijlan:i -)- it w,as held that charges framed irr a Union of Indil artd other€ departmental prot:eedin61s are to be proved by prepon<lerance o[' '1t98s;: scc rzs ' 1zooo1 s scc ss ilfl1 t:- 6 -{KS.J & LNt..t wA No.l t2l ol2E t probability and not beyond reasonable doubt; and in Mohd. Yousuf a1 i Director General of Fire Seroicess, it was held that the ex parte inquiri, and consequent order of dismissal are unsustainable when the notices are sent to the wrong address. The said judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the case of the appellant as there is a clear establishment of the preponderance of probability and applicatioB , of mind in the removal orders passed by the respondents. Hence, the Learned Single Judge rightly held that the said cases are not applicabltr to the case of the appellant. 1,4. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placEd reliance on the judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of lrulia and another a. Kunisetty Satyanarayanaa; and Siemens Ltd- tt. State o( Maharnshtra and otherst, where in the Hon ble Supreme Court helci that a writ petition impugning a show cause notice or charge sheet is not maintainable cxcept in exceptional circumstances like when it ir found whotly without iurisdiction or illegal. These judgments are n()[ applicable to the present case as issuance of the notice is not without jurisdiction. ' 1uo rsy .t scc :os o (2006) l2 scc l8 t (2oo6t t2 scc li Conclusion: 7 AKS,J & LNA,J wA No.ll2l of2024

15. In vie*. of the above discussion, this Court is.f the considered view that the learned single Judge was justifiecl 1n dismissing W.P.No.25662 of 2073 by a common order dated 01.05.2024 and., therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.05.2)24

16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disrnisscd. There shall be no order as to cosLs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pendingr if any, shall //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.SHYLESHI PUTY REGISTRAR qF \ecrroru oFFtcER To,

1. One CC to SRl. A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. N|.ZA|\/PUR CHANDRA SEKHAR (SC FOR TSRTC) loPUcl

3. Two CD Copies BM dl( HIGH COURT DATED:3110112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1121 otr 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS @$# /2- \t'?: I ./ <\, + 'i:*x \. -'., I ll npl, Ztrfi 9"s,t.' . -' -.,-:_ - - =r2'