High Court · 2025

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of certiorari, carring for the records in r.D.No.1Bl20i5 dt.14-06-2017 pubrished in G'O'Rt'No.564 dt.18'-07-2017 0n the fire of Labour court-ilr, Hyderabad and Quash the same as it is ilegar, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner, consequenry direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and a[ attendant benefits and back wages. |.A.NO:1 OF 2018 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 reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and back wages by Suspending the Award in t.D.No.1B/2015 d1.14-06-2017 Published in G O.Rt No.564 dt.18-07-2017 0n the fileofLabourCourt-lll,Hyderabad,pendingdisposalofthewritpetition |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to receive the following documents on record to show how respondents discriminately removed me from qervice. 1. 04.o4.2003 - Appreciation letter issued by 2nd respondent office. 2. 26.O1.2004 - Appreciation letter issued by the D.M. of Yadagirigutta 3 26.01.2008 - Appreciation letter issued by the then R.M. Nalgonda. 4. 31 .01 .2007 - Reward letter issued by the then R M Nalgonda 5' 19.04.2007 - Appreciation letter issued by M D. of APSRTC 6 28 05'2014- Deposition of Y.S. Babu, RTC Constable and translation copy 7 ' 28 05 2017 Deposition of M.K. Reddy and translation copy 8. 03.06.2014 - Deposition of T. Sattaiah, and Translation copy 9. 06.06.20'14 - Deposition of the Lingaiah, and Translation copy 10. 06.06.2014 - Deposition of petitioner and Translation copy 11. 07.06.2014 - Domestic Enquiry report and neat copy 12. 19.07'2014 - Reinstatement order of Ramesh, Ex-driver 13. 08.10.20'14 - Reinstatement order of K.V. Reddy, Ex-driver 14. 17.02.2016 - Reinstatement order of P. Anjaiah, Ex-driver 15. 17.02.2016 - Reinstatement order of R.R. Reddy, Ex-driver 16. 13.05.2016 -Reinstatement order of M.D. Anwar driver 17. 13.01 .2020 - 4th respondent proceedings furnishing the list of employees reinstate into service. for effective adjudication of my writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play otherwise, he shall be put to irreparable loss and injury. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents : SRI P.SATISH KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION N0.39825 of2018 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent_ Road Tra,sport corporation on 2}.r2.1ggz.It is his case that on 04.O2.2014, he was originally booked for a Hyderabad non-stop service, but due to exigency of services, his duty was later a_ltered to Hyderabad-Halia night-out duty. While resting at Halia, he developed symptoms of food poisoning including vomiting ald loose motions, necessitating temporary rest at a relative's house with the conductor's knowledge and consent. Despite resuming dut5r on O5.O2.2O14, his health deteriorated en route, with continued vomiting and giddiness, eventually leading to a stoppage near a place called Lingotam, where he was subjected to a Breath Ana)yzer Test by Security personner a,d Assistant Depot Clerk, which allegedty indicated 128 M}/IOO ML BAC. He disputes being under alcohol influence and attributes the reading to medication for jaundice and Gutka consumption, and states that no medical examination was conducted to corroborate the allegation of intoxication. Despite explaining these facts in preliminary and detailed enquiries, supported by the Conductor of the bus, and others, stating he was not in a drunken state and 2 wp 19825 2018 NBK, ] also no complaints lrom passengers, he was suspended on

21.02.2014 ald chargesheeted, culminating in removal from service on O2.O7 .2O 14 based solely on the disputed Breath Analyzer report, without eyewitnesses, medical corroboration, or procedural fairness as maldated by law including principles laid down in Ministry Of Finance & Anr vs S.B. Ramesh (1998(3) SCC 227), 2OOS UC 1073, and. Lucknow K.Gramin Bank (Now) Nlahabad ... vs Rajendra Singh .2013(12) SCC 372), and against principles of natural justice such as "no man shall be judge in his otun case", with violations of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Appeals to the 3.d, !nd, 6pd lst respondents were rejected, and I.D.No.18 of 20 15 filed before Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, was also dismissed on 14.06.2017 without proper appreciation of evidence or judicial precedents including Assistant Securitg Officer, Railutag Protection Forces, Jolarpattai Vs. Siuagnano,m (1996(2) LIJ 597) alo^d, Munna Lal Vs. Union of India 12073 /I, SCC L&S 673). It is his further case that similarly situated employees, as per letter dt.05.04.2018, were reinstated despite similar allegations, and therefore the impugned order is discriminatory in nature, ald hence liable to be set aside. Petitioner also seeks a consequential 3 wp 39825 2018 NBK, ] direction for reinstatement or remission of the penalty in parity with similarly reinstated co workers

2. Heard Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petltloner; and Mr. P. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, contends that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a charge of being in a drunken state while on duty on 05.02.2014, based solely on a Breath Analyzer Test, without Corroborating medica-l examination or any passenger complaint, despite the petitioner having suffered from loose motions, vomiting, arrd giddiness due to jaundice as certified by a Government doctor. It is contended that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by grave procedural lapses including denial of natura_l justice, bias by the 4tn respondent who acted both as Disciplinary Authority and Enquiry officer in vioration of CCA Regulations ald principles of law laid down in a_forestated judgments. It is also contended that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself, no independent witness or passenger witness was examined, the Breath Ana)yzer report was neither signed by the petitioner nor supported with 4 wp 39825-2018 NBK,I t medical evidence, and his explanation attributing the reading to high-dose medication and habitual gutka use was ignored' It is also contended that Section 25F of the I'D' Act' 1947 was violated due to non-payment of compensation and non-issualce of notrce prior to termination Learned counsel places relialce on Assistant Securitg Officer r't, Sittagnornorm' Munno- l'al a' llnion of India' J(rsulanthsinghu.PepsuRoadulags,RajendraSinghcase [(20131 12 SCc 3721, Shamsheer Singh [(2016] 1 ALT 461' RoutuNagesularaRcrotl.APsRTc,alrLd'2o76(1)ALD434,and contends that the punishment of removal from servtce was shockingly disproportionate and discriminatory especially when similarly placed employees involved in similar charges were reinstated as per the Corporation's own letter dated 05'04'2018' and prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and for reinstatement with appropriate relief' 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary' submits that the allegation on the petitioner is that he was drunk while on duty ono5.02.2o14andwasissuedaChargeSheet.Ashisexplanation was not satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered, ald a Show Cause notice was issued on 20.06.2O14, whereafter an order of removal from service was passed. It is contended that the petitioner approached the Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad, by filing t D'No'18 i 5 wp 39825 2018 NBK, J of 20 15 and after due enquiry, the Labour Court passed the impugned Award dated 14.06.2017 dismissing the petition and therefore there is no illegality in the impugned order.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the petitioner was alleged to have consumed alcohol while on duty on OS.O2.2OI4, pursuant to which a Charge Sheet was issued under RTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Dissatisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, a domestic enquiry was conducted, followed by issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 20.06.2014, culminating in al order of remova,l from service. The petitioner approached the Labour Court contending that the enquiry was vitiated by procedural irregularities and that the punishment of removal was grossly disproportionate, especially considering his unblemished service record of over 18 years. It is to be noted that the enquiry proceedings (Exs.Ml to Ml7) did not conclusively establish that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol while on duty. Neither any medical report/ breath anaJyzer test/ clinical conf,rrmation, nor arry independent/ passenger witness substantiated the allegation of inebriation while on duty. Therefore the mandatory requirements under the Andhra pradesh Industria-l Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1999 have not 6 wp 19825 2018 NBK, ] -ri been scrupulously followed At this juncture' it is relevant to note that as per the record, the petitioner was appreciated for his service on several occasions Considering his unblemished service spalning over 18 years with the respondent Corporation' and there being no conclusive evidence in support of the charge of intoxication, this court is of the view that the impugned order of removal from service is unduly harsh ald therefore the punishment is liable to be set aside'

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned Award dated 14.06'2017 tn I'D'No'18 of 2015' The respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. The petitioner shall have continuity of service and notional consequential benefits; however, he shall not claim backwages on account of this order' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sh,all stand closed' 7 That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above' Wii;".; ihe Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice SUJOY PAUL' on this W"J^""d"V, the Sixteenth day-of April, Two Thousand and Twenty five' //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEffihorr,"=* To 1 2 J 4 5 b The Executive Director (GHZ and Hz), TSRTC.,Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Hvderabad. ifl" n"gi"""t Manager, TSRTC., Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ifre Dv Chietfraffic Manager, TSRTC., frlalgold.q' Nalgondi District' ^ , . fhe O6pot Urnag"r, TSRfC , Nalgonda Depot'. N3!-Sj'}.nq?, Nalgonda District' One CC to SRI V:NARASIMHA GouD, Advocate [oPUC] One CC to SRI P.SATISH KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies '.lit SA HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 ORDER WP.No.39825 of 2018 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. o c) t ( * IHE S Iai). 1 B itjl 2025 Ct'lP.qr r:i :-"" r-) t z r) W