High Court · 2025

K.R. Raieshwari W/o B srinivas Rao' )i'ibiili-r"r'nsana state Road rran 'oli"oi, rivoer.ao5d, Telangana state' Aoed about 31 Years, Conducto(E- t6'3i"cilp"iriiori, Havatnasar-l Bus ..,PETITIONER AND

2. J 4 m*nm,=lgn.l+mffi#+ffi PetitionunderArticle226oftl-leConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to lssue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 4th respondent herein in imposing the punishment of deferment of the petitioner annual increment for a period of 2 yearswith cumulative effect is bad arbitrary ilregal by setting aside the Final Order No. 01/ 114(9y201S-MDN dt' 0'1-06-2016 of the 4th respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents not to effect the said punishment I l I I i : i I , I I t.A. NO 10F2017(WP MP. NOi 6817 oF20171 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 suspend the Final order No. 011114(g)t2015-MDN dt. 0i-06-2016 of the 4th respondent herein directing not to effect the punishment mentioned in the said final order Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. p. VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI N. VASUDEVA REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp-5594,2017 N8K, J SRT JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMA PAKA THE HON' BLE WRTT PETITION No.5 594 o 2011 f ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Contract Conductor in the respondent-Road 1'ransport Corporation in the year 2008' and his services were regularized in 2010' On a complaint filed by a person named Suchithra on 05'10'2015' a charge sheet dated 15'10'2015 was issued to her, levelling five charges primarily relating to cancellation of bus service and keeping the bus idle' and also about non-reporling of broken tube lights and halting the bus at Rajiv Gruhakalpa bus stop intentionally' subseque,t to petitioner,s explanation, an enquiry was conducted, whereafter a Show Cause notice was issued reducing the charges to two' mation to the Show Cause notice' however' She submitted her exPk allegedly the same was not considered and the final order dated 01 .06.20 l6 was passed by the 4th respondent imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect; hence, this writ Petition' z Heald Mr. Venkateshwer Rao' leamed counsel for the petitioner; respondent-Road TransPort and learned Standing Counsel for Corporation. Perused the record' 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ afhdavit, submits that the petitioner had submitted explanation on the charges against her stating that on 15'09'2015' there was a huge traffic jam and therefore delay has occuned and there is no a :,'-.. i ti. .ri 2 t: wp_5594_ NBK, J truth in the a,egation trrat the petitioner and the bus driver kept the bus idle' and further that the bus crew are alorved to have tea at Rajiv Gruhakalpa bus stop and therefore the a,egation of intentional stopping of bus at the said bus stop is false, and the breaking of tube lights was done by students of TRR college and therefore the charges against the petitioner are baseless and without proper appreciation of facts and circumstances" and hence the impugned punishment may be set aside. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, based on the counter affidavit, submits rhat trre expranarion dated 1g.10.2015 submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet was not convincing and therefore the Disciplinary Authority ordered for an enquiry by nominating AM (T) Enquiries, Hyderabad, and the enquiry olllcer submitted a report dated 16. 11.2015 holding the charges proved againsl. the petitioner. pursqant to lhe same the impugned punishment was imposed, and the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedies ofappear or review. and not approached the Labour court, but straightaway filed this writ petition. Leamed Standing counsel submits that due process or larv has been fbrlc'r.ved in the process of enquiry and also rvhile irnposing punishment, and therefore the writ petition is liabre for dismissal, being devoid of merit.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, at the outset, it is to be noted that it is settled raw that this court under Article 226 is notan appellate authority for reappreciating evidence in disciplinary matters; howeveq when due process of law is or perversity in consideration orevidence is noticed, there is no embargo for this court to interlbre with the orders passed by the authorities i, disciplinary i I i I l 3 u!p -5594 -ZOl1 NBK, J proceedings- In the instant case' initially five charges were laid against the petitioner, and subsequently they were reduced to two' The charges primarily relate to non-informing about breakage of tube lights' and stopping of bus at a bus stop, and cancellation of bus service' The petitioner submitted his explanation' on the lines as contended by the counsel fbr the petitioner; however' the petitioner admittedly has not availed the internal remedies of appeaUreview' Be that as it may' upon hearing both the iearned counsel' this Court is of the view that modification of the cumulative effect of impugned punishment would meet the ends of justice'

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by modiffing the impugned punishment to that of deferment of annual increments for two years ivithout cumuldtive'bffect' The.impugned Final Order dated 01,06.2016 passed by the 4th respondent stands modihed to the extent as above. The petitioner shall not claim retrospective monetary benefits orr account of this order' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed' ,=rriffiSlt //TRUE COPY// SECNbN OFFICER Wffim,,:ufi$d To, 1t,. B tVI TKS f,P\q- HIGH COURT DATED:19 tO3tZO2S [r ll E .: ,rz t 1A SEP W I .; ORDER WP.No.5594 of 2017 i I : I I j l I l l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (- e\+\"r