Yadavalle Madhu' S/o.Y.Veeraiah v. ' d;;;;;"

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITI ON No. 12549 of 2025 L' ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of 3'd respondent in interfering with the petitioner's business activities of excavation of ordinary Earth/clay for the purpose of manufacturing of clay bricks, without considering the fact that he has already obtained permit bearing No'T13SUR000l dated I1.04.2025, as illegal.

2. Leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Home has produced written instructions of 3'd respondent, Sub-lnspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station, Suryapet District, whereirr it is stated that neither 3'd respondent nor his staff interf'ered with the activities of petitioner nor harassed him' The allegations made by petitioner are false and baseless' lt is further stated that 3'd responclent has not received any complaint agailst petitioner. If there is any illegality committed by petitioner, 3'd respondent will take action against 2 KL, J W.P.No.12549 ot2O25 petltroner in accordance with law. A copy of the said written instructions is placed on record.

3. In the light of the above, this Writ petition is disposed of directing 3'd respondent not to interfere with the business activities of petitioner withoul following the due procedure laid down under law. However, this order will not preclude 3'd respondent from taking action against petitioner in accordance with law, in case of any illegality committed by him. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if pny pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUW REGI TRAR S I SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, lndustries and Commerce (Mines) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Suryapet, Suryapet District. The Station House Officer, Athmakur(S) lv1andal, Suryapet District. One CC to SRI HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE, High Courl for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR HOfi/E, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies To 1

2. 3. 4. E

7. PSK. GJP +.^q l I I i I l : I I i i L I I i I I I a i i I HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.12549 of 2025 '' --.\.- l ltE src 16 10 SEP 206 ?+ * !,:o,. (f,(' 'i / DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Pr'rc\, \ s\*\"4 t1r-l rN rHE H'GH couRr ir?:Jl%?,|fl5 ffi,:5I;tJFiNA [ 3301 I Ar HYDERABAD 'TWA"i,l55'F^'-?'^i'H-ili"-?if'.E'- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITro N NO 317310F o24 2 **irr,**:#i R!3lxlifl'?,.#;"3:3:'J"'ffi flid"g'"?: Driver' E No 8077Be' ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 ...RESPONDENTS Re p bv i ts M a n as i n s D i recto r' Ii 3 [r.,,1" i,i,l: s.,"?,[,ff iq;s"?"";83,u'"' The Depot Manager TGSRTC' A" O"pot' Zaheerabad' Sangareddy District' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the filed therewith' the High Court may be circumstances stated in tn" pleased to issue un uOO'oOnu* direction or writ particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI' q"=n tf'" impugned order of suspension from servtce and charge sheet issued vide common case No 01 t227 (2)|2024-ZHB dated 11 .Og -2024 as illegal' arbitrary and in violation of Art 14'16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service arong witf' all consequential benefits in the interest o{ 'n'O'un justice and fair PlaY' IA NO:1O F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition' direct the respondents to allow the petitioner respondents depot in the service where the tickets to passengers by suspendrng the im that in the circumstances stated in the High Court may be Pleased to to discharge his duties in the 2nd conductor is allotted to issue the pugned order of susPension from service dated 11 .0g.2024 pending disposal of the interest of justice and fair play. above writ petition in the Counsel for the petitioner : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Respondents:sRr U.sHANrHr BHU.HAN RAo, sc FoR fBI[?t ".,ne The Court made the following: ORDER ,1 I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No'3 t73I of2O24 ORDER: Sceking to quash the impugned order of suspension from service and charge sheet vide common case No 01/227\2)12024' ZHB,datedll.og.2o24,asiliegalandarbitrary,andconsequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits' the present writ petition is filed. 2\ Heard Sri V'Narasimha Goud' Iearned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri U'shanthi Bhushan Rao' learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing for the respondents lrarned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the 3) year 2O10, the petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent Corporation after undergoing due process of selection Thereafter' his service s were regularized w e f' 14'O5'2014 and since then he has been discharging his duties' While so' on ll 'O9 '2024 he was placed under suspension and also issued with a charge memo leveling four charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner was insisted to perform the duties of Conductor witl-r the help of TIM while driving the passengers' vehicles, for more than one month, he made a representation dated 3O.Oa.2O24 to respondent No.2 sLating that he cannot discharge l i. { 1 I l I I l 2- WP 3t731-2024 PK, ,. .i "rr"O.rr"ai the duties of Conductor as he was appointed as Driver and requesting to post him only as driver to passenger carriage vehicie. Thereafter, though the petitioner has reported for duty, he was treated as absent as he could not go to TIM,s service. When the petitioner objected for the same, he was placed ,r0". and issued with the impugned charge memo dated 1 1 .Og .2024, which is illegal and arbitrary. 3.1) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings for not performing the duties of the Conductor is contrary to the appointment order of the pefitioner and is nothing but colourable exercise of the poweF on the part of the respondents. Further, the petitioner has requested the authorities to furnish the copies of the depositions recorded rn the preliminary Enquiry and documents. As the same were not provided by respondent No.2, the taking of photos of the same, for the purpose of his defense statement, cannot be fauiteci with and cannot be treated as misconduct. Learned counsel has further contended that asking the petitioner (drivcr) to do the du., of the conductor while driving the bus is nothing but extracting the work of two jobs, which is uriknown to law. It is further contended that as per the Manual on Operation of the respondent Corporation, the driver 3- PK, J wP -3t73t:2024 not otherwrse has to drive the bus as per the instruction of the conductor' but Hence, it is PraYed to allow the writ Petition and set aside the suspension order granting a, consequential benefits' Reliance has been praced on M.MagandT u, Director, Tam Nadu Stdte Tr.rnsPort Departmentr and C'G'stbamg u' dPSRTC' Hgderabad2 had conducted 4l Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that oo 26.08.2024 the petitioner has reported for duty' signed on duty chart/control charge but refused to perform the duty on 1 150 / 12 10 Dch'rxe Bidar-Hyderabad even after undergoing training on operation of TIMs from 16'07 2024 to 23'O8'2024' As such, the Assistant Manager (Traffic), la,,eerabad, a Preliminary trnquiry and submitted his report on O3'09'2024 wherein the petitioner has participated but refused to sign on the statements. Based on the saicl report' four charges were framed Charge Memo dated 1l'09'2024' against the Petitioner vide has further submitted that the Learned Standing Counsel petitioner himself has admitted in the writ afhdavit that he refused to go on TIM Service As the petitioner was trained on operation of TIMS, he cannot refuse to perform duty Learned Standing Counsei while drawing the attention of this Court to the t (rse r) z scc ag ' zotz 121 tto +9+ a- :l I I I i I i ! ! t I I i I I i I I t l I i I i 4 wP-3 i 731_;o2 4 I Rule 72 of Telangana afiendment made tc Rures. lgRo L^^ corporation can utili parted with .r..."""." through TIM, as "o.ro' ,as conrended that in ,.._" ,n.Ll"_J"j* Vehicre I \ .,r' Lne respondenr the services of the petitioner, who was ttt'''tg in operation of issue of tickets rerused to perrorm ;:lH;. ;:,,;*";l' enquiry on 73.12.2o2oo'nt"t dismiss the writ petition Generar of potice, *r' judgment dated 1 ,.or.r"noo' court in wrir Appeai -" ff;::;: 'l.l-Itroner has issued " '"t::t':: ffiT. In these circumstances' it is prayed to Reliance has been placed on The Deputg Range u' R's' Madhubabu3 o' 'n' Division Bench or this s) 6) go on placed No.O1l This Court has taken note of the submissions made by ctive parties and perused the material on record. As can be seen from the record, as the petitioner refused to TIM services from Bidar to Hyderabad on 26.0g.2024, he u,as under suspension vide Case No.O1/ 227(2) / 2O24_ZHB, 11.O9.2024, besides issuance of charge sheet vide 227(2)/ 2O24_DM:ZHB. on the even date i.e. 71.O9.2O24. Th e main ground urged by the petitioner in this writ petition is 3 2OO9 (4) ALD a7 5- PK, J wP ,377 31 2024 that as he was appointed as driver' he cannot be compelled to perform the duties of a conductor' In this context' it is apt to state that the Government has 7l issued G.O Ms'No'41' Transport' Roads & Buildings Department' daled 29 .O9 '2O 15 and made an amendment to the Telangana State Motor Vehicle Ruies' 1989 ' by incorporating a new Rule 72-A' which reads as under: *72-A: Notwithstanding anything containerl in rule 72' the drivers of stage carriages performing the functions of Conductors are exempted rto"' p1"""""1on of conductor's licence required under sub-section (f) of Section 29 of the Act' subject to the following conditions: (1) The driver' acting as conductor in a have the Educational Qualihcations prescribed in rule 54' carriage shall l2l (3) The driver shall have undergone trarning for a minimum period of (3) days in the operation of issue of tickets through Lctet issuing machine or through other means " 8) A perusal of the material on record reveals that the petitloner was given trainrng on operation of TIMs from 16 'O7 '2024 to 2g.Oa.2024 and earlier also he performed the duties as TIM servlce driver on the route Kandukuru to Bangalore during the period 2020-202t , l I : I j I l I I I I t 1 I ! I I I I l I i -6- P wP_31731_2 o2 9) The record further discioses that purs memo, for the purpose o, "^-^,_.r_--e t dated 09. 12.2024,16. petitioner asking him fo at+^-_: "-"''o evidence or witnesses ,,'",,::::: ;rursu?lt to the charge conducting domestic enquiry, notices 'u"* were issued to the enquiry and arso 16 brin*

12.2024 and 2O.t2.2O24 :r "rro ".r"o.r.",.'.1-"i::: "",",::,:::,'*"'o rnterfere with. Therefo.rot srase, rhis court is charge sheet ;:';:ilJ;: Hi::":::;ff ;J; ffi ^ "ott'" ordinarily shall not be allowed to is still in prosress, at this " interrere wirh rhe impugned ;ron oI the petitioner, dated 1 I .O9.2024. the judgments relied by the iearned counsel for concerned, both are .distinguishable on facts of In M.Magandi,s case (referred supra), I0) Coming to the petitioner are the present case. driver refused to perform duty due to overload of the bus as the same is vioiative of Section 123 of Mot or Vehicles Act, but thc same is not the case of the petitioner herein. Similarly, in C. G. Swamg,s case fteferred supra), the Judge has directed the respondent Corporation not to insist the petitioners ancl other drivers to perform dual job of drivers and conductors with TIMS servlces. But, rn vlew of issuance ol G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 29.09.2015 whereby Rule 72_A was rnserted in Telangana State learned ,l', .a I -7 PK, J wP 31731_2024 Motor Vehicle Ru1es, 1989, the said judgments are not applicable to the case on hand. 11) In view of the above, the Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha11 stand closed. No costs To,

2. _2. //TRUE COPY// SDi. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSTSTAN+ REGISTRAR / F--T SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, Advocate. [OPUCI One CC to SRI U.SHANTHI BHUSHAN RAO, SC FOR TSRTC. [OPUC] Two CD Copies. BSK GJP 8t'(a.. HIGH COURT DATED:1110412025 r Hi- Sfq I.c 10 sEP 2ffi '+ Dc (o (' ( ORDER WP.No.31731 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS |.(q, e\-{"