The High Court · 2025

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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent herein in imposing the modified punishment of reduction of petitioner pay by two incremental stages for a period of two (2) years with cumulative effect and treating the per/od from date of removal to date of reporting duty as not on duty for all purposes as bad arbitrary and illegal by setting aside of the order No. PA/ 1g(42)12022-RM HR of the 2nd respondent insofar the punishment portion only Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TGSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NA1{DA WRIT PETITION N o 38401 ol 2(J22 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Miss Janaki, learned counsel representing Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing on behalf of res;pondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to issuc a wnt or order or direction more part,:r rlarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that l.l,c action of the 2"d respondent herein in imposing the modified punishment oF reduction of petitioner pay by two rcremental stages for a period of two (2) years with cumLl,rt rve effect and treating the period from date of removal to date of reporting duty as not on duty for all purposes as b,rrt arbitrary and illegal by setting aside of the order No.PAl 15 ('42) /2022- RM: HR of the 2'd respondent insofar the punishrrrent portion on ly and pass.. . /'.

3. When the matter i taken uo for hearinq, learned counsel aooearinq on ehalf of the Detitioner u mits that I the sub ect issue in the Dresent writ oetitiorr is squarelv coveredb v the order of this Court dated 3O.12.2022 persserl in W.P. No.15) 59 of 2OO8 and the recirnt ord ers of I I '\] \ 2 s\. I u/P -')1310 r 20ll th is Court dated 19.O7 .2024 oa ssed in W.P.N 2 5 724 of 2019 and the order da d L6.O9.2 o2 n W.P. No.1939 of 2O2L on the basis of the sa id order dated 5 D o d 3O.t2.2O22 oassed in W .P. No.15O59 of 2OO8.

4. The Relevant oortion of the ord er of this Court dated 30.L2.2 O22 oa ssed in W.P. No. 15O59 of 2OO8 is extracted re u nd er: "Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the length of services rendered by the petitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the quantum of punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order".

5. Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner.

6. fn view of the said submissions made by both the learned counsel, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 30.12.2022 passed \- J SN. J \\ t, 38401 2022 in W.P. No. 15059 of 2OO8. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall r;l,and closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/-U.SUDHA //TRUE COPY// To, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR o SECTION OFFICER

1. The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transporl. Corporation, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, T.S,

2. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Hyderabad Region, MC BS, Gowliguda, Hyderabad, T.S. District, T.S.

3. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, l\ilaheshwaram Bus Depot Ranga Reddy 4. One CC to SRI P, VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies (Along with a annex copy of the order dated 30.12.2022 in W .P. No. 15059 of 2008) dB M /BSK I 1r' HIGH COURT DATED:1 610912025 CC TODdV ORDER WP.No.38401 ot 2022 'j: sl,q c( o a) 1 t[T zffi ,?.. \t E) * c tAIr,:),r.:.C PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 / HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO trI.P.No.15059 ()F 2008 ORDER: /'. > 7 1 Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao,, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents' Corporation.

2. This writ petltion is hled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of reducing the petitioner's basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, and treating the suspension period as 'not on dut5r', as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate and consequentiy to set aside the Office order No. 02 /95127) 199 -DVK, dated I | .O2.2OOO passed by 1't respondent.

3. Bnef facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a "Conductor" in the respondents' Corporation. On 01.08.1999 while he was performing his duties en route Devarakonda to Pogilla, a check was conducted at Stage No.16 (Pogilla). During the check, the inspection staff of the Corporation noticed cash and ticket irregularities. Subsequently, a charge memo dated O 1.08.1999 was issued to the petitioner for the aforesaid lapses. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted his explalation but the respondents' Corporation has not issued any reply. Subsequently, the respondents' 2 Corporatiorr had issued charge sheet dated 24.O:) I 999 along witq-) _ suspension order stating that the petitioner failed t:; r:o ect ticket fare from passengers. The petitioner submitted explan:r n,n on 29 .O9 . r?69 to the above said charge sheet. Later, the respon.k.nts, Corporation conducted an enquiry and passed Iinal order No..J.2 ,95(27) darcd I l.02.2OOO by lhe lst respondent imposirrg punishment of withholding of annua-l increment for a period (,1 two years with cumulative effect and the period of suspension is :r.1_atecl as .not on drty'. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeirl before the 2d respondent on 04.O7 .2OO7 . Later the 2nd respon,1,,nt re.lected his appeal on 24.OA.2OO7 as time barred, after lapsr. ,tf seven years. Again the petitioner filed a Review petition on O l.Oi.r ]OOT before the Regional Manager, ApsRTC, Nargonda and the same,)rrs rerected. /99_DVK,

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner veher.rr.ntly contended that the Enquiry Officer without considering tlre explanalion submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, sublrLit ted the enquiry report. He further contended that at the time ol checking, two passengers have given statements that they have noi l1l(en tickets and not paid the bus fare_ Hence, the ticket fare was r:r:,llected from the passengers b-v the TTI and also imposed a fine of Rs.50,, He further contended that other two passengers also have give. sratements that they have boarded the top of the bus while the bus u,,r:i n slow motion when the sheep cattle was crossing before the trr.; without the knowledge of the petitloner as well as driver of the bus and they |rav7l._ \ not paid ticket fare and collected the tickets from the petitioner. The above said statements of the passengers itself woutd establish that there was no intention of misappropriation of any amounts and the petitioner has not caused any loss to the respondents' Corporation. The 1"t respondent without considering the above said aspects passed the impugned order imposing punishment withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment though the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation white discharging his lawful duties as a Conductor.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents' Corporation after following the due procedure contemplated under the Regulations and after conducting enquiry by duly appointing an Enquiry Officer and that apart considered the explalation of the petitioner as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, impugned order was passed on 11.02.2000; and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by l"t respondent.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, apparently, the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the charge sheet for the charges levelled against him. The petitioner has emphatically contended that at the time of checking, two passengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets and not paid the bus fare artd other two passengers have also given 4 statements that they have boarded the top of th(: r)r rs while th" br.r,f .- t was in slow motion when the sheep cattle was cros: ing before the buS' without the knowledge of the petitioner as well as rlriver of the bgs and further stated that they have not paid ticket far.r rrnd collected the tickets from the petitioners. The learned counsel I,tr the petrtioner rightly contended that the respondents' Cc,r poration without considering the statements given by the passeng,rs and without properly considering the explanation submitted by t r( petitioner to the charge sheet, passed ttre impugned order agairr;t the doctrine of proportionality basing on the report submitted by t J.r rr Enqurry Officer imposed punishment of withholding annual gradt :ncrements for a period of two years with cumulative effect. T he respondents' Corporation has failed to establish that the act o'tlie petitioner was intentional in not issuing the tickets to the passenlr:; s and he played a fraud to cause colossal financial loss to the respondents, Corporation exchequer but it amounts to only neg i!,ence on the part of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respor lr'nts,Corporation ought not to have imposed punishment; n.rr_-,(,lyj stoppage of increments for a period of two years with cumulatl ..c eff'ect, which, in the considered opinion of this Court is a major punr.;l:ment. 7 . Taking into consideration of the facts and c,r l. rmstances of the case and a-lso the length of service rendered by rh,: pctitioner, this Court deems it Iit and proper to modifi7 the quantllr:) tf punishment of 5 stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for {'' period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of } punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passirlg of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order.

8. Subject to the above modihcation, the writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if arly, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO Dated: 30.72.2022