The 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 pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more i:articularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus ddclaring that the action of the 3rd respondent herein in issuing Show cause Notice of Removal from service of the petitioner is bad arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice by setting aside the show Cause Notice No.01/1 14 (3) 12024 - KRTL dt.27-B-2024 of the 3rd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all benefits by treating the suspension period as on duty for all purposes. lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service under control of 3rd respondent by suspending the Show Cause Notice No.01/1 14 (3) 12024 - KRTL d1.27-8-2024 of the 3rd respondent herein. lA NO: 'f OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the substance allowance from the date of completion of 1 year period i.e. with arrears and continue the same pending suspension. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, T.S.' 'I The Telangana.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing 2. The Regional Manaqer, TGSRTC. Karimnaoar. TS 3. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Korufla BuJDdpot, Karimnagar Dist. 4 The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Metpally Bus Dbpot, Karimnlgar Dist. 5. The State of Telangana, B.ep. Uy its'principal Sebretary, Traniport Department, Secretariat, Hyderebad, T.S AND ...PET|TtONERS/RESPONDENTS [:^4lj! ngqOy. S/o. Malla Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Conductor (E. 323074), TGSRTC, Metpally Bud De-pot, Karimnaqa'r Disirict. Telanoahi State. (R/o H No.5-80/6/2, Madhurangbr (V), Gangidhara (M), XaiimnZgar Dist, TS.,) ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 12.09.2024 passed in l.A.No.l of 2024 in W.P.No 25299 ol 2024, and dismiss the W.p.No.25299 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 To 4: R.ANURAG, sc FoR TSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No.S: Gp FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION N 90F 4 'rhe present writ petition is liled seeking the following reliet "...declaring that the action of the 3'd respondent herein in issuing Show cause Notice of Removal from service of the petitioner is bad albitrar5r, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice by setting aside the Slrorv cause Norice No.01/ rt4 (all2o24-KRTL dt.27-og-2o24 of the 3rd respondent herein and conseqLrently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all benefits by treating the suspension period as on duty for all purposes ...,, 2l Heard s.i p.Venkateswara Rao, learnecl counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Anurag, rearned standing cou,sel appearing for the respondents 3) Brief feLcts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as conductor, charge sheet dated 0s.o2.2o24 alongwith suspension order was issued a.gainst him alleging that or1 or.o2.2o24 near sec,rity Branch, he had ridiculously commented the Depot Manager, IVletpally, as 'Ee sund.ari lkkacle Undha,. on 07 .o2.2a24, 2r.o2.2o24, 23.os.2o24 and os.o6.2o24, petitioner has submitted representations to furnish the sHC report dated 02.o2.2o24 as rverl as preriminary Enquiry Report dated I .{t / X I I l : j i I I I : 2 PK, J wP_25299-2024 O3.O2.2O24 and also relevant video. Thcugh the Preliminary Enquiry report dated 03.02.2024 and SHC report dated O2-O2-2O24 are selved. on the petitioner, the video is not yet served by the respond.ents. Therefore, the petitioner could not submit his explanation to the charge sheet. However, the petitioner was asked to participate in the domestic enquiry and accordingly he attended for enquiry on 12.07.2024. Further, after receiving the domestic enquiry report, petitioner has submitted his objections on

12.08.2024. Without consid,ering the said objections, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned Show Cause Notice of Removal dated 27.08.2024 proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service. Questioning the salne, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned. counsel for the petitioner contends that though the 4l petitioner requested the authorities to furnish copy of video to enable hirn to submit proper explanation, the same was not furrrished. Therefore, the subsequent procedure adopted by the respondents is against the principles of natural justice and non-est in the eye of law. Further, in the letter dated o1.o2.2o24 of the out-sourcing Security Guard and also in the report dated -"\.%_ r 1 3 PK, J wP_25299_2024 o2.o2.2024 of sHC, there is no mention of statement of A.vineeth, car driver of the Depot Manager. Therefore, it can be construed that the said witness is a fabricated witness. Further, the statements of the Security Staff and car driver are contradicting with each other. Learned counsel further submits that the Security staff admitted that the car driver was not available at the spot at the time of incident. Further, in spite of request of the petitioner, the bus driver viz., K.Ganga Ram was not examined in the enquiry and the said witness is a crurcial witness. l,earned counsel further contends that the petitioner made a complaint on o2.o3.2o23 to the Managing Director and Regional Manager, Karimnagar, about the uncleanliness in the Bus stand of vemulawada, for which, the Unit officers were warned. For the said reason, the present show cause notice was issued.. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that issuance of impugned show cause notice indicating proposed punishment is illegal, bad, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and. therefore prays to allow the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Siemens Ltd. u. State of Maharq.shtrat. ' (2006) 12 SCC 33 / 1 ! i 4 PK, J wP_25299_2024 5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that as the petitioner has ridiculously commented on the Depot Manager, Metpally, on 01.O2.2O24, basing on the preliminary enquiry report dated O2.O2.2O24, ttre charge sheet dated 06.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner and he was also supplied with the documents i.e. report of Security Head Constable, Metpally, as well as Preliminary Enquiry Report, but the petitioner failed to submit his explanation even after acknowledging the charge sheet. However, the petitioner has participated in the domestic enqulry and after conducting a detailed enquiry, duly providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to d.efend his case, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding that the charge is proved. The Enquiry Report was served on the petitioner calling for his objections and accordingly the petitioner has submitted his objections. After considering the said objections, the present impugned show cause notice of removal dated 27.08.2024 is issued to the petitioner as the behavior of the petitioner towards a lady officer and ridiculous comment against the lady Depot Manager is a serious misconduct. Therefore, the learned. Standing Counsel pralF to dismiss the writ petition. \\ 5 PK, J wP_25299_2024 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 7l As can be seen from the material on record, after issuance of the charge memo dated 06.02.2024, a domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, as per the Regulations of the Corporation, and the petitioner has also participated in the said enqtriry. After concluding the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 29.07.2024 holding that the charge against the petitioner has been proved. Based on the same and after calling for the objections of the petitioner on the Enquiry Report, the present impugned shorv cause notice has been issued. 8) The main contention of the petitioner is that the present impugned show cause notice is issued indicating the proposed punishment of removal and the sarne amotrnts to pre- determination, which is impermissible under the larv. 9) In this context, this Court deems it apt to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in this context. I t I ! 6 PK, J wP_2s299_2024 a) In v.c., Bo,naras Hindu tlnlaersitg a. shrikantz Ilonble Supreme Court helcl as under: "48- 'fhe vice-chancellor appezu-s to have madgup his mincl to impose the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein. A post-decisional hearing given by the High court was illusory in this case." b) similarly, in K.r. shephard. a. Union of rndias. the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: "It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose.,, c) Likewise, in siemens Ltd..,s ccse (referred. supra) it was held by the Honble Supreme Court as under: "11. A bare perusal of the ordcr impugned beforc the High court as also the statements made before us in the counter- affidavit liled by the respondents, we are satisfied that the statutory authority has already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant..... 12. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the High court for its consideration afresh on its own merits...." 2 pooq r I scc 42 3lutz;4 scc 43t I \ 7 PK, J wP_25299_2024 10) In the case on hand also, as can be seen from the impugned show cause notice, the authority has already made up his mind and determined to impose the punishment of removal upon the petitioner. Relevant portion of the impugned show cause notice is extracted for better appreciation of the matter: ".....In view of the severity of the mis-conduct by the conductor and I am of the hrm view that the Conductor deserves deterrent penalty for the proved charges. Hence, I have tentatively come to the conclusion, it is f,rt and proper to irnpose punishment of REMOVAL FROM SERVICE to be imposed upon the conductor besides treating the period of suspension as Nor oN DUTY for all purposes." 11) The above portion of the impugned show cause notice clearly demonstrates that the authority has already decided to impose the punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner even before receiving his explanation, which is bad in law and contrar5r to the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the above referred judgments, and therefore liable to be set asicle. 12)' For the afore-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned show cause notice dated 27 .og.2o24 is set aside and. the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service 8 PK, J wP_25299 2024 forthwith. However, trris order does not precrude the authorities in taking further action against the petitioner, strictry in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs. S MED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REG I //TRUE SECTION OFFICER To 1

2. 3. 4. 5. State of Telangana

6. One CC to SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SR! R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies PSK. GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1710912025 ORDER WP.No.25299 of 2024 C) t) i'.o(. E * OWING THE WRIT PETITION Sc o S L J :-_=:. 1r,- $ ;;q i :r:. -,'',. iI :4.