K. Ravinder Reddy v. 1. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 4 others

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe 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 wRlT oF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings No. PA 120 (146) t201'-GHZ daled 31t12t2015 of the 2nd respondent inconfirming the proceedings of the lower authorities is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the APSRTC Service Regulations, discriminatory one and as well as the violation of the fundamental rightsguaranteedundertheconstitutionoflndiaSetasidethesameconsequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as a driver with all service attendant benefits. i =v7 |.A.NO:1 OF 2019 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a driver by suspending the proceedingsNo.PAl2o(146)t2o15.GHZdaled31112120,15ofthe2nd respondent, forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.BALAJI Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R.ANURAG The Court made the following ORDER . // t' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.26932 of 2Ol9 ORDER: Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in respondent-Road Transport Corporation in the year 1995. While discharging his duties on lO.ll .2014, the respondents-Corporation alleged that he committed cash and ticket irregularities. Based on the said allegation, the respondent-Corporation issued a charge sheet dated 13.11.2014 and placed the petitioner under suspension. Challenging the same, he Iiled W.P.No.37328 of 2OI4 and the same is pending. Thereafter, the respondent authority ordered an enquiry, and the enquiry ofhcer conducted an enquiry without following the procedure AS contemplated under the APSRTC Services and submitted a report to the 4tt' respondent holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. Based on the said report, a show-cause notice dated 15.04.20 15 was issued, and the petitioner submitted an explalation on 24.04.2015. The 4tn respondent, without considering the same, removed the petitioner from serrrice uide proceedings dated 25.04.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner hled an appeal and a 2 NBK,J W-P. No.25932 of 2019 revision, and the salne were rejected uide proceedings dated

08.05.2015 and 14.10.2O15. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the 2"a respondent, and the sarne was rejected uicle proceedings dated 31.12.2015. It is further stated that in the case of P.Raju, a Driver of their depot, who committed serious cash a-nd ticket irregularities, he has been reinstated into service by imposing a punishment of reduction of pay by t'"vo incremental stages, which shall have effect on future increments, through proceedings dated 18.04.2018. The action of the respondents in taking a different stand in a similar case arnounts to a colourable exercise of power. Hence, this Writ Petition.

2. Heard Sri B.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Stalding Counsel for TSRTC- respondent Corporation. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and contended that petitioner had rendered ovcr two decades of service, and had not committed arty major misconduct during the discharge of his duties in the past. He further stated that the petitioner is having two NBK,,I W.P. No.26932 oI 2019 children, who are prosecuting higher studies and there is no lncome except employment in the Corporation. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the

2.d respondent

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation submits that petitioner is a Driver, was adequately trained before being assigned to the TIMS (Ticket Issuing Machine System) service and did not raise aly objection at that time or in the appeal or review proceedings. The petitioner cannot seek parity with alother employee, as the facts are distinguishable. In the present case, the amount involved is Rs.2,OOO/-, and the petitioner deliberately collected the fare but failed to issue valid tickets to the passengers. Had the checking not occurred, the Corporation would have suffered a loss of legitimate revenue. It is also relevant to point out that petitioner was previously removed from service on 14.O7.2Ol1 for misconduct but was reinstated on appeal. Therefore, he cannot contend that this is his first instalce of misconduct. The present writ petition, challenging the removal order passed by the disciplinary authority, is not + NBK,I W.P. No.z5932 of 2019 maintainable, as the s:cpe cf j.idicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. The petitioner ought to have approached the Labour Court for appropriate relief. Moreover, the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings dated

37.12.2015 after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than five years. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Consiclering the submissions made by both learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has served the Corporation for over t\4,o decades with a clean record, except for a previous removal which r.vas subsequently reinstated. It is also noted that in a similar case involving P. Raju, who was found guilty of comparable misconduct, a lesser punishment of reduction of pay by two increments was imposed along with reinstatement. In view of the principle of parity, the same relief is appropriate for the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings dated 3I.12.2015 are liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the proceedings dated 31.12.2015. Respondent No.2 is :::ta 5 IiIBU w.P. No.26932 of 2019 directed to reinstate the petitioner into service without any back wages but with continuity of service, and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendine i. thi" .^'-;t petition, shall stand closed. SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO SI ANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER rt Corporation, Musheerabad, HYderabad. Transport Corporation Musheerabad Hy-derabad

1. The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Trans Z. ine giJcutive Director (Greater Hyderabad Zone), Telangana State Road 'tvlanager, fSRTC, TSRTC Hyderabad, Region, Hyderabad

3. The Fiegional a ihe Oivisional Manager, Sanathnagar Division, Sanath Nagar Hyderabad' 5. The Depot Manager, Miyapur I Depot Miapur, Hyderabad' 6. One CC to SRI B.BALAJI, Advocate [OPUCI 7. One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies District. To SA BS HIGH COURT DATED:01 1O712025 ORDER WP.No.26932 ot 2019 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ----' ,a!-- l tlE lltl ..a' ..<- j,-, 04 AUE zffi i' ir ''l \.,. \:, \i. \ Sr'l IDY{-