T.V. Vinodh v. 1. Telanqana state Road Transport corporation

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith' the High Court may be pleasedtoissueanappropriatewritordirectionparticularlyoneinthenatureof wRlToFMANDAMUS,declaringtheactionofthe2ndrespondentinrejecting the request of the petitioner through proc' No' PA/19(165/2022'ED'KRZ dated23.06-2023intheplaceoffornotconsideringthepetitionerrequest made in the Mercy Petition dated 16-09'2022 which was received on 26-09-2022 by the 2nd respondent office for not considering the petitioners request made in his mercy petition dated 16'09'2022 which was received on 26.09.2022 by the 2nd respondent office and not allowing the petitioner for duty as arbitrary, unjust, and discriminatory as well as in violation of Art' 14'16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner for duty as directed by the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondents in their respective orders cated 13.02.2020 and 18.02.2020 arong with a, benefits in the interest of justice. As per court order dated 1g'06.2024 vide l.A.No.1 0f 2024 in wp.No.43076 of 2O22 prayer is amended. lA NO: 1 oF 2022 'Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner for duties as directed in the order dated 13'02.2020 pending disposat of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, REp. FOR SRI V.SlDDHARTHA GOUD counset forthe Respondents: sRr KRTSHNA KARTHTK, REp. FoR SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, SC FOR iSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE PULLA KARTHIK trIRIT PETITION No.43O76 of2022 ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.l in rejecting the request of the petitioner through Proceedings No.PA/ 19(165112O22-ED, KRZ, dated 23.06.2023, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2l Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel, representing Sri V.Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Karthik, learned counsel, representing Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Iearned Standing Counsel, for respondent-Corporation. 3) The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Conductor w.e.f.27.O5.2O15 and posted at Bodhan Depot. Thereafter, he along w:frh 22 others were asked to work in Warangal Region on deputation basis vide order dated 04.04.2016. Accordingly, he was deputed to work in Mahabubabad Depot w.e.f.l2.O4.2O 16. Thereafter, his services were regularized w-e.f.O1.O5.2O77 by the Regional Manager, Nizamabad, vide order dated 21.06.2O17. Further, while he was working at Mahabubabad Depot, he was removed from sewice vide order dated 27.O8.2O18 on the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities while conducting bus service on 05.O4.2018. The appeal and rerrision preferred by the petitioner were also rejected vide orders dated 22.03.2019 ar.d 12.09 -2O 19 respectively. However, on review petition being filed by the petitioner, respondent No-2 vide order f */ '.r.J -2- PK, J V\'p 43026-2022 dated 13.O2.2020 has modified the punishment order to that of postponement cf annual increments for a period of two years which shall have an effect on future increments and that the period from the date of removal to that of reinstatement shall be treated as not on dutSr and thereby orclered reinstatement of the petitioner. Consequently, respondent No.li issued proceedings dated 1g.O2.202O posting the petitioner to work in respondent No.4_Depot and directing the petitioner to report within three days from the date of receipt of the said order copy. However, due to Covid lockdown and demise of his brother_in- law, petitioner could not report within the said period of three days before respondent No.4. Thereafter, when the petitioner has approached respondent No.4, he was not all0wed to join duty. Finally, on 23.06.2023 respondent No.2 has rejected the request of the petitioner vide Proceedings No.pAl l9 (165) /2O22_ED:KRZ. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents ought to have considered that there was a reasonable and suflicient cause fbr the petitioner for not reporting to duty before respondent No.4, in terms of order dated 13.O2.2O2O and, 7g.O2.2O2O passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively and the respondents ought to have appreciated that the brother-in-law of the petitioner was expired in the month of February, 2O2O and, therefore he could not report within three days as directed in the order dated. r3.o2.2o2o. Li. 3- PK, J wP 430762022 Hence, the action of the respondent No.2 in rejecting the request of the petitioner vide impugned rejection order 23.06.2023 is in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on: Judgment dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this l) Court in Writ Appeal No. 1429 of 2011; and 2) Order dated O1.12.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 15194 of 2021. 5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel while narrating the facts leading to removal of the petitioner from services vide order dated

27.Oa.2O18 has contended that the appeal and revision trled by the petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 22.O3.2019 and 12.O9.2019 respectively. However, vide order dated 13.02.2020, the Review Authority i.e. respondent No.2 while considering the III Level appeal filed by the petitioner, on humanitarian grounds, has modilted the punishment and directed reinstatement of the petitioner by imposing certain conditions with a further direction to the petitioner to report before the Depot Manager, Parkal Depot, within three days from the date of receipt of said order. Inspite of acknowledging the said order on la.O2.2O2O, petitioner failed to report for duty and after a lapse of 2 years and 5 months, petitioner made a representation before respondent No.2 stating that due to lockdown he could not report at Parkal Depot and the said request was rightly rejected by respondent v I Ct;. 4- PK, J wP_43076_2022 No.2 vide impugned order. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that the petitioner himself failed to report at Parkal Depot within the stipulated time despite the specific direction of respondent No.2 to report. It is further contended that lockdown came into effect from 21.O3.2020 and the same was released in a phased manner and in fact the buses also started operation partially from September, 2O2O, onwards. Yet, the petitioner has not reported at Parkal Depot and only one year after completion of Covid pandemic, he approached the authorities seeking to allow him to join the duty. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 7l A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner was removed from service on 27.08.2018 on the ground of involvement of cash and ticket irregularities. Further, the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were also dismissed on 22.03.2079 and 12.O9.2O19 by the Divisional Marrager, Warangal, and Regional Manager, Warangal, respectiveiy. However, in Review Petition, vide order dated 13.O2.2O2O, respondent No.2 has modified the punishment to that of postponement of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner subject to certain conditions. Thereafter, consequential order dated 18.02.2020 was passed by respondent No.3 posting at petitioner 41-Parkal Depot and further directing the petitioner 5 PK, J wP 43076 2022 to report before respondent No.4 within a period of three days from the date of receipt of said order' However, the petitioner failed to report before respondent No,4 within the stipulated time' The ground urged by the petitioner is that due to death of his brother-in-law' he could not report before respondent No.4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that initially, he approached respondent No'4 several Limes and requested to permit him to join the duty' Since respondent No'4 has not permitted the petitioner, he made an application to respondent No.2 on 29.O7.2022 seeking to restore the order dated |3'O2'2O2O' duly reasons for his non-joining as per the order dated explaining the

13.o2.2020. 8) While dealing with a similar situation, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated28-12'2O11in Writ Appeal No'1429 of 201 1 has held as under: "5. It is a case of unauthorized absence arrd there are no other allegations made against the workmatr' The fact that the workman was directed to be re-instated into service by proceedings of the Regional Manager dated 5-2-2009 was witl.in the knowledge of the workman' There is no material that the workman attemPted to sought for tirne for joining the duty. In tfre circumstances, the workrnan shall not be entitled to count service to avail the service benefits for t.l.e period ftorn 8-12-2OO8 (i.e. the date on which the workma'n received the letter of appointrnent re- instating him into service) to 26-a-2OIl (i'e' the date on which he reported for duty) instead of 21-1O-2OO3 to 1-9-2011 as obsewed by the leamed single Judge." -6- Said ratio has been followed by this Court in W.p d,ated O7.12.2023. PK, J wP-43076 2022 r No. ]5194 of 2O2t, 9) In view of the above and following the judgment d,ated. 2g.12.2O11 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1429 of 2011, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: 1) Thr: rssp6ncl6nts shall permit the petitioner-workman to joirr the duty, in terms of order d,ated 13.02.2020 passed by respondent No.2, however, without reference to the time stipulated thereunder, and also issue posting orders to him; 2l The petitioner-workman is not entitled for counting of the senrices and other service benefits from 13.02.2020 (the date on which the petitioner was posted at parkal Depot) till the date of his joining pursuant to this order; 3) The absence of the petitioner for the said period shall be treated as NOT ON DUTY,, however, the said period shall be counted for the purpose of continuity of service without arry monetary benelits. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There //TRUE COPY// ASS UMALA DEVI REGISTRAR sha-ll To, sEcTtoN OFFICER state Road rransport corporation, Bus ] $!r:iixiSiR[:"J,",1;sg;gai' irff:B*runrffi,Jj#}iH#_pi:t.iffiffi 7 . Two CD Copies BSR .BS flit.'.\- 1,".. I HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.43076 of 2022 q iO 6, > a) 1\rf S TAf€- o ?' I J[ll ?sli * \_ -/, I ,/o /-tt I ,/2' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS