Disposed

Dubba Dharma Rao, S/o.D.Yerraiah, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC4 Apr 2013WP/10069/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Depot Manager to conclude disciplinary proceedings against a suspended APSRTC bus conductor within 30 days while ensuring natural justice and granted subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed disciplinary authority to conclude proceedings within 30 days and pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

Dubba Dharma Rao, S/o.D.Yerraiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10069 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, a conductor with the APSRTC attached to the Vizianagaram Bus Depot, challenges the order of suspension passed on 23-03-2013 by the said Depot Manager alleging certain irregularities against him. It was principally alleged against the petitioner that he has not collected the requisite fare and issued tickets to two passengers who boarded the Bus at Gajapathinagaram and are bound for Poram ex-stages 6 to 10 while issuing tickets. It is also further alleged that the petitioner has obstructed the TTIs to perform their duty and also instigated the passengers against the TTIs and as a result of these unsavory incidents, adverse report has been filed by TTIs against the petitioner. Hence, the Depot Manager has placed the petitioner under suspension initiating disciplinary proceedings against him.

¶5

It is urged by Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner quite strenuously that there were 68 passengers in the bus at the time when the bus is checked and in spite of the writ petitioner saying to the TTIs that he has sold tickets to all passengers by collecting the requisite fare, the TTIs have pointed out minor lapses on his part and when he was trying to depict with them about the difficulties faced by him in issuing the tickets, the TTIs have mistaken his conduct as a quarrelsome conduct and prevented TTIs from discharging their duties.

¶6

However, Sri L.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel submits that these are all matters that can only be enquired into the disciplinary proceedings.

¶7

I entirely agree that the allegations levelled against the petitioner

¶8

deserve a very expeditious consideration and the 3^rd respondent-Depot Manager therefore is directed to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are concluded at the earliest by providing every opportunity to the petitioner to establish his defence and also by following the procedure prescribed under the APSRTC Employees (CCCA) Regulations strictly, within a maximum period of 30 days from today. It is needless for me to observe that the principles of natural justice would also be complied with by the respondents. The writ petitioner shall also be paid the subsistence allowance which should be paid in accordance with the Regulations.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶10

______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶11

Date: 04-04-2013 Prv

Dubba Dharma Rao, S/o.D.Yerraiah, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dubba Dharma Rao, S/o.D.Yerraiah, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Shekar Vs The A.P. Genco

Mr. Surya Prakash Vs The Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd.

Md.Rizwan Ali Khan Vs The A.P. Genco

P. Narasimha S/o Yekaiah Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Bommaigari Saraswathi W/o Kavali Mallesh Vs The District Collector, Anantapur

Chindada Nageswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh