1. G. Uday Prakash v. The Telanqana State Road Transport Corporation' Rep' by its Managing

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the. affidavit ril"o iner"iritn, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or o.!_"r.?.. direction ,oi"lrrti.ulr,ly one in the natuie of writ of mandamus declaring - Ji irre respondents herein in _ that the action suspending the petitioners_is bad arbitra.y, ittegui *ithout jurisdiction by settinq aside the charse sheets / suspension oro6r. *6. ci644(103)/2024- AH, Ot. zo- 11- 2024 of the 2nd resoondeni t"r"in *O direct the respondents to ro rinwi*,'ini" d rd il ;il;lJ;, t he 6th respo nd e nt he rei n fl ,,,"# I,n;"ffi,r,,lsne* "o*Jq,-i"i.,,,,V lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section-l51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the.petitiJn, tii""uigi'i"rn may be preased to direct the Respondents to allow the petitioners ii.i" Oriii".ti*ith under the control of 6th respondent by susoending^ the charge ;;.; ; suspension orders No 3,:.#l::?"rzq- eA, ot. z-o- rr- zoziZi tnZ"iii respondenr herein pendins w. Counsel for the petitioners: SRl. p VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent NO.7: Gp FOR TRANSPORT Between: WRIT PETITION NO: 3560 5 0F 2024 P-srinivas, s/o. satvanaryana, aged about 59 years. occ. Senior Assistant (F )(E.27 01 01 ), Cantonment sri b""p"iL;riE"lroro AND

1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Telangana State Road.Transport_Corporation. Rep. by its l\rlanaging Lirrector, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, T.S.- - "' "" ''"" il,X:#:jJjSTIvtanaser, (Carso and Business), Head office, Bus Bhavan, ..PETITIONER Ilg.l:q'q"t !'tgnirOer, TGSRTC, Secunderabad Region, JBS, ptCKET, secunderabad, T.S. The Dy- Chief Accounts Officer, TGSRTC, JBS, picket, Secunderabad. The Dy. Chief Accounts Offir M,;#;U;;, ?y?,;;B;"ffl ' rcs nrc' rest Aud it' B u s B ha va n, The Depot [,4anager, TGSRTC, Cantonment Bus Depot Secunderabad. T.S. Iliilfl : fJ l:'3*t:f:d, [?B c p a r s e c re t a ry, rra n s po rt :l " "?JJ:.. I I I I ! I ! t I r i I I I I i i t I ! I e I ! I a :. : I j .l] I I J E f ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Art'rcle 226 of lhe Constitution..of lndia praving that in the circumstances stated in tlJ"tri'"iiirt-el itrerewitn' the High court may be iii".fion more pa(icularlY one in the nature of oleased to issue a writ or writ of mandarnr. A""f"iiJ' tn"'i tn" action of the respondents herein in suspending the petitioner'il'i;' ;|.oii;ry''-iltegat wift'out iurisdiction by setting aside the charge sheeUsrrrL,ii"""orO"r'r(o.CZ1O++1r03\12024-BH. of the 2nd respondent n"';fi;;;;;;;;';"flfi'""i.ths resoondents to allow the ;itn" otn respondent herein with all petitioner forthwith into ouiv ffi;;;;i; benefits dt.2611112024 "ro"i'", IAN O:1 oF 2024 "r petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in in" o'"t*ti"lin"-His1 c.,o"t mav be pleased to direct the affidavit filed in support the Respondents to allow tn"" p"iilJ""' iito outliro't'*'ith under the control of 6th resoondent by s,tp"no'n"g"in"- "n"g" :h::l^-/ suspension order No' c2i644(1o3)t2024-B{, dl26il112024 of the 2nd respondent herein pending w'P' Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl' P VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 to 6: SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent NO'7: GP FOR TRANSPoRT WRIT PE TITION NO: 35730 oF 2024 ""*"if,an"nur, s/o M.Krishna, aged about.36 vears' occ conductor (E'214219)' 6;;i;'ffi;"t B,J DePot' secunderabad ...PETITIONER AND

1. The Telanqana State Road f ransport Corporation Rep ' by its Managing Di;"#;'dG Bh-avan, tvlusneerabad T S The Chief Traffic Manager' (Cargo and Business)' Head Offic-e' Bus Bhavan' Musheerabad, T.S 3. The Regional Manager' Secunderabad' I .5' TGSRTC, Secunderabad Region' JBS' PICKET' 2 TGSRTC, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad

4. The DY. Chief Accounts Officer 5. The Dv. Chief Acmunts Officer' TGSRTC' Test Audit' Bus Bhavan' "' trltuinderaoad, Hyderabad' T S' 6. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC' Cantonment Bus Depot Secunderabad' T'S' 7 The State of Telangana, Rep by its.Plncipal Secretary' Transport Department, Secretariat' Hyderabao' t > : t ! I i I I ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the 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 respondents herein in suspending the petitioner is had arbitrary, illegal without iurisdiction by setting aside the charge sheet / suspension order No. C21644(1O3)12024-BH, dt.26-11- 2O24 of the 2nd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner forthwith into duty under control of the 6th respondent herein with ali benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 petitioners into duty forthwith under the control of 6th respondent by suspending the charge sheets / suspension orders No. C2l644 ( 1O3\12O24-BH, dt.26-1 1-2024 ot the 2nd respondent herein pending W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent NO.7: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 HON,BLESRIWSTICENAIYIAVARAPURAJESHWARRAO oN Nos .35440 35605 and 3s730 of 2024 WRTT COMMoNORDER:- Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and being disPosed of bY this the same, these writ Petitions common order' 2. Heard Sri P'Venkateshwar Rao' learned counsel appeanng for the petitioners and Sri R'Anurag' learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC appearing for the respondents' 3. For the sake of convenience' the facts in W'P'No 35440 of 2024 are discussed hereunder :- 4. W.P.No'3544 O of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief :- "....,toissleatoritorord'erordtrectiortmorepatltanlorlqone in the nature of tttit of mandamus dt'tlttring the actiotl of the respondentshereininsuspendingthepetitiorlersisbad, arbitrary, ill'egal, uitlnut juiscliction bg setting aside the charge sleets / suspension order No C2/644(103)/2024 BH' doted 26.11'2O24 oJ the- 2"d respondent hereirt and consequentlg direct tte respondents to allort't the petilioners forthuith into dutg under control oJ *rc 611' respondent herein uith atl benefits'" i TI 2

5. The brief facts in W.p.No.3544O of 2024 are as follou,s :_ (i) The petitioners are working as conductors in cantonment Bus Depot since long back. In the year 2021, Cargo Services were introcluced in TGSRTC. To that extent, a counter was also opened in JBS, Secunderabad. The authorities forced the petitioners to work in the cargo Section at JBS. There is no letter or proceeding about the deputation of petitioners to w,ork in the Cargo Section. There is no training for the petitioners to u,ork in the Cargo Section regarding cargo services whether in software or other technical side. The petitioners only get their salaries lrom Cantonment Depot. As per the initial instructions, the petitioners have to dispatch the items by collecting them from the buses through Hamali or drivers. The petitioners rvere not given an_r sritten instructions regarding their duties or job uork. While so. rhe respondents issued charge_sheets along s.iLl.r suspension orders to the petitioners on 26.1 1.2024, staring that therc vras a misappropriation by using software user lD in the iogistic booking counter at JBS. Subsequently, the petitioners submittcd representations to the respondents to furnish certain documents to enable them to submit an explanation, but all the clocuments \\'ere not furnished to the petitioners. 1 3 (ii) In the cargo section at JBS' along with the petitioners' 20 out sourcing employees also were working' They were specially recruited to work in the out sourcing' However' the 5th respondent gave scanners, user IDs'and passwords to regular employees such as petitioners' but the scanners were kept available to all the employees' including out sourcing employees and user IDs'were given to the petitioners' which were also kept available to all the petitioners and also to the out sourcing employees. It was not secret and confrdential to the particular employee. AII the employees working in the cargo section' including out sourcing employees' were also informed of the password. The outsourcing employees mainly did cash transactions and booking and the petitioners mainll' did the dispatch work. Unfortunately' the user ID and the pass r't'ords r.r,ere given in the names of regular employees ' but they were used by all the employees' mainly outsourcing emplol'ees The outsourcing employees were misappropriated in the cargo booking section, and red handedly the outsourcing emplol'ees \\'ere caught by the respondents and discontinued sevcn outsourcing employees for their mischief' One of the outsourcing 4 employees, Smt.Saidamma was red handedly catch hold by Dy.CTM (iii) The Unit Officer (DM) is the appointing authority, and he is only the disciplinary authorit5z, but the impugeed charge_sheets and suspension orders were issued by the !"a respondent, who is in no wa.r, concerned with the petitioners. Therefore, the 2^d respondent is not competent to pass the impugned orders. The respondents threatened and forced them to pay an amount of Rs.S, i0,O00/ collectively to drop the disciplinar5z proceedings before issuing the chargesheets dated 26.17.2024. with fear, the petitioners paid an arnount of Rs.S,1O,000/_ through a receipt dated 14_ 1O.2O24. The shortage of calculations of payments is because of mistake occurred with inadequate digital transaction or mischief b-r.' the outsourcing employees. There is no evidence of the petitroners' participation in the said misappropriation. (iv) The rcier. ant portion of the Enquiry Report submitted by thc Enquirl Officer reads as follows:- "'l'Ltt:re ts onlrl a sitrgle paAtm sconner being shnred. across l4 rliffere:nt ernployee IDs, u_thich causes significant chaLlt'nqes irt trackirtg and confi.rming upl pagments. This -s/rnrr:r/ sgslem hcts [ed. to confusion and inaccuracies n 5 uhen processing digital WAm'ents, as emplogees unable to ueifg IJPI transactions in real-time Despite multiple reEtests mad'e bg cargo booking stalf to the Depot Marketing Dxeantiue (DME) and the Regional Marketing Executiue (RME) to proui'de indiuidual Pagtm scanners, no action hr,s been taken' This lack of response from the concerned superuisors llt:.s directlg responsible to the obnormal differences in digital paAments recorded under eoch emPlogee ID. Atl cargo booking staff refused to share th'eir login credentiols initiollg; ltoueuer, theA uere pressured and threatened bg DME, RME, and Sri Rangarao (Supdt-T) Staff uere utonted. that if tlcg did not amplg ntith the demond to share their IDs ond po'ssuords' The DME and RME, tlrLs failed to address tllese citical oyterational conceftLs' resulting in ongoing issue-s urith cli(lit.ul pogment ueification and tlle misuse of loqirt credentials. Despite repeated uarnings and requests from the stlff, did not take adequate steps to safeguarcl tht: ltutlrrient Process. Dttnng the enquiry, it has been obserued stotements thut Sri P.G.Shankar, E-251836 utlto u'ns transferred to Pttigr L)e1tot in SEP. 2023, strll his cargo ID in use at the carcyt (:oLtnter. Additionallg, it is obserued an dbtorlnol financktl cliscreytancg tttith this ID, amounting to Rs'78'018' t)uinll the enquiry, it hos been obserued that both tlrc Depot Marketing Exeantiue (DME) ond the Reqrcnal \ 6 Marketing Incharge (RMD) failed in their responsibilitA to cross-uerify digital pagments ot the JBS Cargo Counter from April 2O24 to September 2O24." (") Hence, the present writ petition

6. [,earned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents lrled counter aJhdavit in w-p.No.3544o of 2024 stating tl.at it is the primary duty of the petitioners to monitor an the activities of JBS logistics counter including hnancial transactions. The duties of booking clerks are tighter in nature when compared to the actual duties of the conductor, which involves the issuance and coilection of tickets and money respectively from the passengers. The petitior-rers have been serving in the said post for the past four years u.ithout any demur or resistance. The frnanciai fraud alleged br.. the outsourcing employees misusing the login credentials/ sys tem credentials is far from true, since the personal details or login credentials would not be shared with the outsourcing emplo_r,ees, r,l,ho are engaged only for doing loading and unload ing the parcels. After receiving the chargesheets and suspension orders on 30.I1.2024, on 02.12.2024, the petitioners requested certain documents, which were handed o\rer to the petitioners on 07. 12.2024. The RTC 6 7 employees shall only perform duties of booking and delivery of parcels, which involves cash/UPI transactions ' and outsourcing loading, unloading and recervtng staff wor-rld be utilized for contention of the petitioners that parcels. Therefore' the had access to scanners' cash outsourcing emPloYees transactions and bookings done by the outsourcing employees rs It is iurther stated that in the instant case' several 7. employees in the cadre of Conductor' Depot Clerk (E)' Senior Assistant (Finance) and superintendent (Traffic) were involved. The procedure for initiation of disciplinary action' where several emploYees in different cadre were involved, was Provided in ln terrns of the Circular No PD- 155/ 1989' dated 21'11'1989' said Circular instructions' the Vice Chairman ald Managtng Director had clirected the 2'd respondent to initiate disciplinan in ordinarY Proceedings ' The acticin against all emPloYees of amount was rePorted bY the incident of misaPProPriation Dy.Chief Trafhc Manager (L)' who is a Senior Scale Offrcer' r'idc his rePort dated 04' 1O '2024 ' Therefore, the 2"d resPondent can the impugned charge-sheets and suspension orders to the pctlttoners The SuPervrsors and tlrc staff from the designatton rSSLlE 8 f: of the Superintendent to the booking clerk, were suspended for their involvement in the misappropriation of a huge amount of Rs.8,73,822/ - as per the preliminary enquiry report. The preliminary enquiry prima facie establishes that the charges levelled against the petitioners and the involvement of concerned employees. The petitioners paid an amount of Rs.5,10,000/_ to the Cantonment Depot. The petitioners, along with other employees involved in the misconduct, are placed under suspenSion. Therefore, the respondents have rightly passed the impugned orders, and there are no grounds to interfere.

8. karned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon Regulation 11(1) ol CC&A Regulations, which reads as follows :- 11 Initiation of disciplinary proc:<: t:cli n q -* (1) The appointing authontll or arttl ctutltoritg to tuhich it is subordinate or anu other atilutitll ctttthorised. in that behalf by the Corporetiott i,t1 tt rt.st)lutu)t1_, m,g initiate discipltnary proceedings ogttitt-.t art emplogee in u case calling for disciplinarg uctietrt untlrr tircst, regulaLions. (2) l:he competent a.utlu;nti1 rut,l,.r tlutise (l) aboue may itself conduct further entyt it g ut !)L:ct)rLlLptce uith the prouisions of regulation l2 or nrug, sttbject to the 1 I I I I I I 'o 9 prouisions of ong general or special order of ttrc Managtng Dtrector or onA higher authoitg, a's the case maA authoise anA other employee superior in rank to employee charged, to conduct an enqtiry in the ca'se' NOTE: The authoritg conducting an enqtiry under the prouisions of clause (2) is here in afrer referred to as the Enquiing AuthoitA in these Regulations' Explanation: In this regulotion tLrc expression 'appointing authoitA me,:ns the authoity competent to make substontiue appointment to the post held bg the emplogee for the time being- (3) Wt'rcre two or more employees are concernEd in anA case, the outhoitA competent to impose the penaltg of dismissal on c,Ll such emplogees mag make an order directinq that discipLin.ary action against all of tlem mng be taken tn o comrLon proceed'ings' Ang such order shall spectfg: (a) The autlront!1 tultich nuty function as the Enquiring Authoitlt fur the pLtrpose of such comrlon proceedings' [b] Whether the procedure prescibed in clause (7) or clauses (2 ) to ( 1 4 ) oJ RegL c,tiotl 12 may be folloued in the proceedings. The authontg conlpt'Lent to impose a penoltg speciiied in regulatiott 8 in respect of employees ogoinst utlnm such joint enquiry is heltl shall be the autLaritA competent to 10 (, impose such a penaltg on all such emplogees und.er Regalation 1 O . (4) Nothing contained in this regulotion shall be d.eemed. to preclude an emplogee from ca ing for an explanation from anothet emplogee u.tLn is administratiuely subord.inate to him in respect of onA matter pertaining to his cluties. "

9. t earned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents have issued similar nine suspension orders and nine charge-sheets to the petitioners separately on 26.11.2024 alleging misappropriation of various amounts as alleged in the charge-sheets. However, the petitioners have not misappropriated the said amount. As per the enquiry report, the petitioners are not responsible for the misappropriatior-r occurred in the cargo section. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petitions, directing the respondents to set asrde the suspension orders and charge-sheets and allo,,r. thc \r,rit petitions.

10. In support of his contentions. learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment oi the High Court of punj ab and Har5rana in PAPPU GIRI AND OIEIERS Vs. pRESIDIIVG o 11 }FFICER, TNDUSTr ]IAL TRIBUNAI-CUM-LABOUR coaRT' PAMPATI.

11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for ttre respondents submits that the petitioners have misappropriated the amounts as alleged in the chargesheets, and hling of the writ petitions is premature, as the respondents have issued only suspension orders and chargesheets and that the disciplinary enquiry is still pend.ing. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petitions and they are liable to be dismissed' L2. In support of his contentions' learned Stalding Counsel for the respondents relied upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court in W.P No 186 of 2OO9' dated O2'05'20O9 ald W.A.No.66B of 2023, dated i l'O7 2023' , having considered the rival submissions made 13. This Court by the learned counsel for thc respective parties' is of the considered view that the pe tl[toners contended that without training, they were forced to u'ork in the Cargo Section at JBS' In the instant case, the petitioners have been working in the Cargo Section for the last four 1ears' When allotting the work in 12024 Law suit (P&H) 2988 72 I question, the petitioners never objected and accepted to do the work at the Cargo Section. When the charge-sheets and suspension orders were issued, the petitioners have taken a new plea that there was no training to work in the Cargo Section and the same is not tenable. Further, the mere issuing of charge- sheets and suspension orders cannot finalize or decide the the petitioners. There are several stages in illegality. Therefore, at this juncture, it is not on the part of the petitioners to question the illegality of determining appropriate impugned chargesheets and suspension orders itself 14 . The Division Bench of this Court while allou,ing W. p. No. 1 g6 of 2OO9 on O2.05.2O09 observed as folloq.s : "Hauing regard to the facts an.d. cirt.trzrstu/1.:c-s o/ the case, ue are of the opinion that the Tiltumtl ou(Jltt nol to haue interfered uith the order of susperr-siorr po.s-ser/ ltq competent autLtorttA, particularlg when. th<: ctttlltonties haue got the pouter und.er Rule g of the ApCS 1(.( AJ Rrrk:.s 1991 to place an emplogee und.er suspensictrt pt:rrdrrtq enquiry. AII the aspects haue to be gone into bLt ljte .lact finding authoritg and the enquiry tuilL clisr.lost: th., truttj and oth-enaise of tlte allegations. Further, rI i-s .setiled preposition of lau thal suspension pettdirtrl enqutrlt can.rtot be interfered uith and the Coufts can direct ottltl to conclude and complete the proceedinrls In ittc I i t I i 3 '| t 13 circumstances of the cose' the Tibunal instead of directing the authoities to complete and conclude the disciptirutry proceedings pending agoinst the respondent within the tine Jrom'e, exceeded' its limit ond ouer stepped its juisdiction bg directing the outhoities that le should be transfened. to a for off place' which is impermissible und-er lana and' unutorranted' As the task undertaken bU the Tibunat is impermissible under la ut' the order passed bg it suffers from uanous serious legal infirmities and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.'

15. The Division Bench of this Court whiie allowing W'A'No'668 of 2023 on l\.O7 '2023, observed as lollows :- "On the other hand'' the learned Senior Counsel for tl? 7st respondent had contentled. that odmittedly, there are no allegations t'euelled against the 1'! respondent ond the 1't respond.ent is uorking a's Senior As-ststant in Accounts Olfice and major allegations are leur:Llerl aqoinst 'Accounts Officer'. Euen though no aduer:;e Jlndinq is recorded in the preliminary enquiry, the 15! res{)otrr'lent is placed under suspension llithout there beirttl trn'q l-rasis f<tr hts arbitrary exerci,seqndthelearned.sing1teJtrlgltlwasjustifiedin suspending the suspension orders' 'therefore' there are no meits in the tuit petitton nnd lhe 'some is tiable to be set asi.de Thi.s Court, hauing considered the iual submissnns made bg the parties, is of the cctnsideretl uieu thot prima facie, the learned' Singte Judge' coulcl rtot haue expressed i i l I i I I I I I j I I I 1 I ! 1,4 anA optnion os to u)frcther the 1"t respondent is inuolued. in the said allegation or not since the said_ allegation can be ascertained onlg at tlrc time of regular enqtiry and therefore, the learned Single Jud.ge u)as .not justifi.ed_ in suspending tLLe suspension orders. Ad_mitted.lg, suspensiort pending enquiry is not o puni.shment. Therefore, the interloctttory ord.ers passed. bg the Iearned Single Judge in W.p.No.14O6S of 2023, datecl 07.06.2023 is liable to be set aside and. accordinglg i, is set aside and the leo.rned Single Jud.ge shall adjudicate the main Writ petition i.e., W.p.No.14O65 of 2O2_a a.s expeditiousLg as possible preferdblA uithin a peiod. of ttuo rnonth.s from the date of receipt of copg of this order.,

16. As per the aforementioned Division Bench judgments oi this Court in W.A.No.66g of 2023, dated tI.O7.2024 ancl W.P.No. 186 of 2009, dated O2.OS.2OOT, which are relied on br the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, tirc rncre issuance of chargesheets and suspension orCers pencling r:nciuin is not at all a punishment. Even otherwise, the petrtroncrs aiso have remedies like appeal, review and mercy petition Therel-cr-c. the present writ petitions questioning the suspension orcl<,rs a rtri charge sheets are not maintainable. 17 ln PAPPU GIRI,s case (1 supra), the High Court o[ punralr and l{an'ana in para No.23 held as follows "The Apex Court in M/s' Kundan Sugar Mills (supra) uthile considering almost the similar facts inuol'ued in the caseinhandhaslaldtlnttlrcemplogerhosnoinherent ight to transfer his emplogee to another place ulrcre he choosestostartabusinesssubseElenttothedateofthe emplogm.ent, lDhen tllere u)as no condition of seruice of employment of the emplogee either express of implied that the emploger lv;rs tle ight to transfer to such neu) uenture started or proposed to be started- subsequent to the dote of his emplogment. The Apex Court in that case has uphold the judgnent of the Labour Appellate Tribunal haldinq that the management lnd no ight to tronsfer the workman to neu) factory and lence, the order dismissing him from seru[ce uos tegal based on tte fact that such workmon employed in a foctory ouned bg the management was souqht to be tran-sfened to a neu uenture' The Singte Bench decision of thisCourtinKakodangaTeaEstote(P)(supra)onuh.ichthe learnedseniorCounselforthemanagementplacesrel[once cannot be applied' in the case in hond' irt uiew of the aforesaid discussion ond' os it7 thl.;:t case' the corrcented ruorkman uas tra n'sfeted frorn ct post in tLL(' teo qorden to the Heqd QuaiTer of tLte Tea Compang'

18. The above. case pertains to the dismissal of an employee' However, in the present case' the petitioners have been working for the last four years arrd at the time of allotting the neu' work' the petitioners did not raise any objectiorl' and they are continuing till issuing of the chargesheets and suspension II 16 orders. Therefore, the principle laid down in the aforementioned case does not apply to the present case. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mere issuance of chargesheets and the suspension orders itself does not constitute punishment. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petitions, and they are liable to be dismissed.

19. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period o[ slx months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that while conducting the enquiry, the petitioners have to co-operate with the enquiry. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if anr.. shall stand closed. \ To, SD/. P. NAGABHUSHAMBA PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 One CC to SRl. P VENKATESWAR RAO Advoca e [oPUC] One CC to SRl. R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Transport, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 KKS C] Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 .r I I - _ _:::- :_ ., i; / -\' l-r 22 AlJ6M ': \' a,! COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.35440,35605 and 35730 of 2024 [)p Sep 16 i-t - ,.. { DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS : i i I I i I a ! I I I j I j 1 ! ! : : ; : l : i