K. Upender v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY, SC FOR TGSRTC WRIT PETITION NO: 25767 OF 2025 Between: G.D Rl,/o. Reddy, S/o 1-5-16t1tF2 Ella Reddy, aged about 59 years, Ocr ADC, E.No.270774, Gangaputra Colony, OId Alwal, Secur d:rabad. AND 1 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. b1, it i tvlanaging Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 3 The Regional [/anager, IGSRTC, Ranga Reddy Regicn, MGBS, Hyderabad The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, MYP-I Depot, Miyapur, llrderabad. ,PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnc'a praying that in the circumstanceS stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the lligh Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularl5 one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of su:;rr:nsion from service vide Proc. No. P11498(1y2025-RR, dated 30.06.2025 and ssued charge sheet vide Proc. No. P11498(1)/2025-RR, dated 08.07.202[ as itlegat, unjust, capricious, discriminatory, arbitrary as well as in violation o'Art. 14,16, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner prrry this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the :_ etitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice: ard fair play. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties in the 3rd respondent depot by suspending the order of suspension from service issued in Proc. No. P11498(1)12025-RR, dated 30.06.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY, SC FOR TGSRTC WRIT PETITION NO: 25851OF 2025 Between: M.M. Reddy, S/o. M. Bathki Reddy, aged about 57 years, Occ- ADC, E. No 27 0823, N o. 2-521851 41 4/P, G achibowl i, Hyderabad AND

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Ranga Reddy Region, MGBS, Hyderabad. 3. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, t\/YP-l Depot, Miyapur, Hyderabad ..PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol 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 or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of suspension from service vide Proc. No. Pli49B(1y2025-RR, dated 30.06.2025 and issued charge sheet vide Proc. No. P11498(1)12O25-RR, dated 08.O7.2025 as illegal, unjust, capricious, discriminatory, arbitrary as well as in violation of Art. 1 4, 16, and 21 ol the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. 4 lA NO: 't OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th(, lircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C: urt may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharil : his duties in the 3rd respondent depot by suspending the order of suspensior from service issued in Proc. No. No. Pli498(1)/2025-RR, dated 30.06.2025 p:nJing disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY S;C FOR TGSRTC WRIT PETITION NO: 25897 OF 2025 Between: R. Kishore Babu, S/o. Ratnam, aged about 50 years, J;c. Conductor, E. No 21097 7 . Rl/o 6-6 1 /78, Bhavaipuram, Ameenapur, Sanr; :r eddy District. AND 1 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by is l\rlanaging Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 a The Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Ranga Reddy Regior. MGBS, Hyderabad. The Depot ltrlanager, TGSRTC, IVYP-I Depot, tvliyapur Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition undr:r Article 226 of the Constitution of ln,tiz praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tht: lligh Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particutarl / cne in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of sus oension from service vide Proc. No. P11498(1)/2025-RR, dated 30/06/2025 an<l irsued charge sheet vide Proc. No. P11498(1y202s-RR, dated 081071202: as iilegal, unjust, capricious, discriminatory, arbitrary as well as in violation c,1 lrrt. 14,16, and 21 o,f the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pra / this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the rrrtitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justict rrnd fair play. w lA NO: 1 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 allow the petitioner to discharge his duties in the 3rd respondent depot by suspending the order of suspension from service issued in Proc. No. P11498(1y2025-RR, dated 30/06/2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY, SC FOR TGSRTC WRIT PETITION NO: 25901OF 2025 Between: P. Srinivas, S/o. late Sathaiah, aged about 59 years, Occ. ADC, E. No. 271294, trUo. 4-3-187132, Seetharampur Colony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. AND

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Ranga Reddy Region, fMGBS, Hyderabad. 3, The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, MYP-I Depot, Miyapur, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER ...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 or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of suspension from service vide Proc. No. P11498(1)/2025-RR, dated 30.06.2025 and issued charge sheet vide Proc. No. P1|49B(1)12025-RR, dated 08.07.2025 as illegal, unjust, capricious, discriminatory, arbitrary as well as in violation of Art. 14,16, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Wf lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in th( ,)ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C:u1 may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to dischar(t : his duties in the 3rd respondent depot by suspending the order of suspensior frcm service issued in Proc. No. No P1/498(1y2025-RR, dated 30.06.2025 p:niing disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDD\ S;C FOR TGSRTC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER W THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.25766.25767,25851. 25A97 and 25901 of2o25 COMMON ORDER: Aggrieved by the impugned ordcrs in Proc. No.Pl/498(1)/2O25-RR dated 30.06.2025, whereby, the petitioners have been plzrced under suspension, the present writ petiLions are filed.

2. Since lhe lis in these writ petitions is one and the same , they are analogously heard togethcr and are taken up disposal by way of this common order.

3. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned colrnscl appcaring for the petitioners, and Sri N. Srushman Rcdd-r', lcalned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road 'lransport Corporation, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners subrnits that the petitioners joined the services of the respondcnt Corporatiolt as Driver and Conductors cluring 1991, and subsequently, got their sen.ices regularized. Thereafter, all thc 1te;titioltcrs, except thc pctitioner in W.P.No.25E97 of 2025, \,,'cre prr)nrctcrl :rs Assistant Depo: Clcrks. \Vhile so, rclying on some three documents, respondent No.2 has perssed the present impugned. orders dated 30.Ctr.2O25, placing i1-1. prjtitioners 2 PK, J W.i .Xo.25766 of2025 & Batch under suspcit sitn. I{orvevcr, rvhcrr the petitioners I (l,luested to furnish thc afore sa:d ihrcc docume nis, insteacl of coir l;i< lr:ring the san1c, rcspondcnt ilo.2 .l-ras issucci individual charge ;l ccts against the petitionels ort 08.07.2O25, alleging that they h:r ,c misappropriated rece ivablc cash procecds by inflating Hp and DpT t._a nsactions, during their duties as; Shift in-charge at HpCL Fuel Outlet r1. Myp_l Depot, a,d that thcy failed to submit relevarrt documents/proo.s lor thc aforcsaid HP and DPT T,-.nsactions. Ho-,vever, since the docu,Lcnts, rclerred to in the refercncc, were not furnished to the petitioners, tlrcy submitted thcir representations to respondent No.2 on l5.07.20lli, rcquesting to furnish the relevant documents, rvhich were served - p cr1 thcm through letter addressed by respondent No.2 dated 26.07.20 3 Thercafter, the petitioncrs subn-rittcd their explanations on 04.Og.2O,;, stating that thc documents reltting to receipt of daily cash, UpI/I,.) S payments, Hp Drive Track PltLs and Hp-pay sale transaction, etc., €! t([ also the details of daily closing and opening readings of a.ll nozzles ar:: not furnished to ascertain the correctness or otherwise, have not bec;t turnished. It is also stated that the duties entrusted upon the petit oners, who are working as ADCts and Conductor, are also not a part o . lhe duties as per the Rules prescribed in the RTC operationar Manual. zLnd if there rvas aly discrepancy in the cash details, only the outso _u.cing employees Y 3 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & BatctL would be responsible, as they were the individuals handling the Nozzle by collecting cash, online payments, etc. As such, denied the charges and requested to drop further action and also to revoke their suspension. However, without even considering the explanations of the petitioners and without even furnishing the aforesaid documents, the respondents are proceeding ahead with the disciplinary proceedings, due to which, the petitioners are facing much hardship in defending themselves.

5. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority of the post the petitioners are holding is the Junior Scale Ofhcer, i.e., Depot Manager, and thus, if so warranted, respondent No.3 ollght to have initiated any proceedings. However, the present proceedings are initiated by respondent No.2-Regional Manager, who is the revierving authority under Regulation 29 of the TGSRTC (CC&A) Regulations,

1967. As such, the petitioners are being deprived of an opportunity of two-level appeal, i.e., appeal under Regulation 22 and a review under Regulation 29. Moreover, the petitioners are also being deprived of a third level appeal under Regulation 30, which amounts to denial of respective appeal rights. Therefore, the present impugned orders are unsustainable under law. It is further submitted that from the documents furnished to the petitioners, it is found that one 4 PK, J W..) ,\,,.25766 oI2O2S & Batch Mr. Yedukondalu, Senior Assistant (F), E.No.2;.)OS8 and one G. Shankar, Assistant Enginecr (M), E.No.611613, MyF _i Dcpot, were also held responsiblc, but neithcr of them rvere placed un C,tr suspension nor any proceedings wcrc initiated against them, in s,:it: of bringing the same to the notice of respondent No.2. As s.,t c r, the action of rcspondent No.2 is based on a colourable exercist, cf power and thc same also amounts to adopting selective system of s.. s tension, which is in gross violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the c. rr;titution of India. Therefore, leanrcd counsel seeks indulgence of this Crurt.

6. Per contra, Iearned Standing Counsel appeari;rg on behalf of the respondents, on hling of counter alfidavits, submits tl at the Accounts Oflrcer reported prima /acie findings of serious irr_, )g ularities by the petitioners, causing a loss to a tune of Rs.30,1i2,256.21 to the Corporation. As such, in view of the serious irre1l _rlari ties involving huge amounts. the pctitioners were placed under suspension in accordance with Regulation 18 of the TGSRTC (cc&A) Reg,tations. It is also submitted that suspension is only an admin,r;t:ative measure, pending enquir1,, rvhich does not prejudice the petiti rrrers, defense in any manner. It is further submitted that on c onsidering the representations of the petitioner dated 15.07.202i. copies of the relevant documents, consisting of the A.O.,s report cl tted. 17.06.2025, Y i 7 PK, J W.P.No.25766 oJ 2025 & Batch G. Ravi Shanker, Assistant Engineer (M) of respondent No.3 Depot, were issued with the charge sheet dated 26.07.2025, alleging misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix)(a) & XXXII of the TGSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. However, they were never placed under suspension. F\rther, no action has been initiated at all against one Mr. Yedukondalu, against whom, prima facie rvas also established. Hence, it is once again prayed to allow the present writ petition. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in K. Sukhendor Reddg u. State of A.P. and anothert

10. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

11. A perusal of record discloses that in view of the allegations of serious linancial irregularities causing substantial loss to the respondent Corporation, based on a preliminary enquiry dated

03.O7.2025, respondent No.2 has issued the present impugned orders daled 30.O6.2O25, placing the petitioners under suspension, follou'ecl by charge sheets, datcd Oa.O7.2025. It is apposite to rcfer to the preliminary enquiry report dated 03.07.2025, and the conclusion portion of the said report is extracted hereunder: r (1999) 6 SCC 257 8 PK, J W.l' .io 25766 of 2025 & Batch "Conclusion: On vcrification of rclcvant documcnts and , o rsideration of statements of all employees who performed their dut re ; at Miyapurl depot Fuel olrtlet, it is to concludc that

1. It is evidcnt through the statements of ADCi .rd Conductor that they arc recording the Hp pay transactions iL ; 1;iven by the outsourced operators ivithout cross checking in r Irl rile and has fail:d to gcnerate summar5. report from pOS ma.:trine of HpCL anC rcceivc cash from outsourced operators as p( r statement. 2. It is prima facie evident that the Hp pay trarra,:tions rvere receivable Cash pro :e:ds were inflated and misappropriated.

3. The Earning DC o[ Miyapurt depot Smt.J.Anitha ]t.1| 10633 has faik:d to collcct, check arld file all the relevant ( o ruments at the time of collection of cash of fuel outlet of the ( riv

4. lll B Sirrarama sastry E.203934, sA(F) of MyPr depot has failed to cross check and reconcile all Hp pa), irrrsaction in OMC's portal and went on making pay-errt" t r the fuel without rcconciling.

5. Sri E.Ycdukondalu E.27OOS8 SA(F) of BHEL lr s performed dutv at Miyapurl depot on reliving from 12.OS.2:; tLt 24.O5.25, he has performed duty at Miyapurl fuel outtet t xclusively at Fuel outlet during this period, but failed cros. check the relevanL transactions.

6. The rvrong entries by ADCs in fuel outlet trarr;a:tions has came to the notice of Sri.G.Ravi Shankcr E.411613, AE0/)/MYP1 on 10.03.25, but failed to esca.lat( tl e issue to Iligher,\urhorities. Thus. it is evident that the ADCS sri M.M.Reddy, I i70823, sri p. Srinivas, 8.271294, Sri G.D.Reddy, E.2TO774, rri K.Upender, 8.203972 Sri G.S.Chary E.2O2|S6, Sri R.Kishore Bt tt t. E.2\O9T?_ Condcutor, J Pandaraiah E.250986 retired DC, Sri B.f I t. rama Sastry, E-2O3934. S.q(F) and Smt J.Anitha, E.210633 are p .imarily heid responsible for the severe financial loss to the Corporati r r.,

12. From the above, it is clear that apart from the .re itioners, certain other individuals, viz., Mr. B. Mohan Rao, Depot lVlanager, Mr. S. Ramaiah, Deputy Manager RM (M), Mr. G. Ravi Slre nkar, Assistant I I 9 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Bq.tch Engineer (M) and Mr. E. Yedukondalu, Senior Assistant (F), were also allegedly found to be involved in the same incident. However, it is the specihc case of the petitioners that none of these individuals were placed under suspension, despite a pima faciecase was also made out against them as wel[. According to the respondents, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the aforesaid individuals by way of issuance of charge sheets, but no action has been taken against one Mr. Yedukondalu, since he rvas only on relieving duty during the relevant period.

13. From the above, it is evident that none of the co-delinquents were ever placed under suspension, even though disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them by rvay of charge memos dated 26.07.2025 ar,j O8.O7.2025.

14. It is well-settled principle of larv, as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that discriminatory treatment among similarly situated individuals is impermissible. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has consistently held that the selective suspension of one or more individua,ls involvcd in the same set of allegations/ incidents, rvhile retaining others in service, carnot be permittcd, as it amounts to discrimination and arbitrary treatment. In Sukhendar Reddy (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed: 10 PK, J W.1) '.25766 oI2025 & Batch "7. Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of senior IAS officers, e . r senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothil I :ositive or definite cal-r bc said as yet as thc investigation is lr<.1y to take time. The matter is pending with the policc sinr.: t,t2-l,9gO when the FIR was lodged at Anakapalli Town p, r i( e Statjon. The invcstigation has not been completed althougt irbout two- and-a-hzL1f 1.cars have passed. Wc do not know hc ,r. ong it wilt take to complete the investigation. That being so, r : officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has nr rv come out that the disciplinaqz proceedings are not contemp irt, )d, carnot be kept under suspension for arr indefinite period n rrticularly in a situation where may more senior offrccrs mrr; ultimately be found involved, but the appellalt a.lone has tre en placed under suspension. The Government cannot be 1,c Tnitted to resort to selective suspensron It cannot be permittcd to place ust to exhibit an: 'eign that an officer under suspension j action against the ofhcers, irres pective oftheir hig , r statuc in the service hicrarchy, would be taken. " (Empha.is supplied)

15. From the above, it is clear that the authoritic:, tannot resort to suspension in a selective manner. In the instalt rt,rs,c, although the respondents contend that disciplinary proceedings wer . initiated against the other individuals, but none of them l-ravc b.:,rr placed under suspension like the petitioners hercin. Hence, it is clcar that the impugned suspension amounts to a selective treatm. tl, and therefore, the impugned suspension orders are unsustainable in he eve of law.

16. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the - rr:sent impugned suspension orders are liable to be set aside o| the ground of discriminatory treatment. Y 77 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Datcll

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed-in-part, setting aside the impugned suspension orders o[ the petitioners issued by respondent No.2 vide proceedings in Proc.No.Pll498(1)/2O2s-RR, a,ll dated

30.06.2025, and the respondents are directed [o forthwith reinstate the petitioners into service. However, this order shall not preclude the authorities from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners in pursualce of the Charge Memos dated OA.O7 .2025, strictly in accordance with law. Misccllaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. SDAA.V.S. P DEPUTY ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER sport Corporation, Bus

2. The Regional lvlanager, TGSRTC, Ranga Reddy Regron, MGBS, Hyderabad 3. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, MYP-I Depot, Miyapur, R.R. District, Hyd. 4. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Uppal Depot, Uppal, Hyderabad. 5. FIVE CCs to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 ; l I I I I I I i t I I I I '3[tT 1, . \'l .i,,. i\ ";.. \ z_-'\ r- ri it25 i i COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.25766, 25767, 25851, 25897 arrrl 25901 ot2025 1 PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIC)NS, WITHOUT COSTS c) ,/ ,3 4 .//2 ,tt a-