Dismissed

The Regional Manager v. Mohd. Sadiq

Telangana HC4 Mar 2020WA/211/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a Writ Appeal filed by APSRTC officials against a Single Judge's order modifying a pensioner-retired driver's punishment. The High Court held that remanding the matter would cause hardship to the retiree, and the modification was justified in the interests of justice given the delayed proceedings. The pending miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; miscellaneous petitions declared infructuous and dismissed.

The Regional Manager Vs Mohd. Sadiq — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF IVARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 21 1 OF 2019

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order dated 1811112018 passed in the WP.No.^'19995 of 2007 on the file of the High Cou rt.

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

The Regional Manager, APSRTC (Now TSRTC), lt4ahabubnagar District. 2. The Divisional I,4anager, APSRTC (Now TSRTC), Nagarkurnool Division, lVlahabubnagar District.

¶11

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kalwakruthy Depot, Mahabubnagar District.

¶12

The Depot lVanager, Achampet Depot, Itrla habu bnaga r.

¶13

...AppELLANTS

¶14

AND

¶15

lVohd.Sadiq, S/o. tt4.A.Khadar, Aged about 45 years, E.No.252629, Driver, APSRTC, R/o. Kalwakruthy, Itlahabubnagar.

¶16

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶18

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 suspend the orders passed in W.P.No. 19995 of 2007, dated 1811112018.

¶19

lA NO; 3 OF 2019

¶20

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 permit the petitioner to file additional affidavit and to consider the same as part and parcel of condone delay petition in l.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.A.No.211 of 2019 in the interest of^justice,

¶21

lA NO: 4 OF 2019

¶22

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 permit the petitioner to file additional grounds and to consider the same as part and parcel of W,A.No.21 1 of 2019 in the interest of^justice.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. B MAYUR REDDY, SC FOR APSRTC

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. VENKATESWERLLU KESAMSETTY

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

HCJ & AAR, J W.^jt. No. 211 of 2019 Dt:04-03-2020

¶28

(pe . Hon'blc l hc Chirf Jrrsrice Sri ltaghvcn<lr,r Singh^(lhauh. r:' JUdgment:

¶29

The appellants are aggrieved by the^()rder dated ln 08- 11-2C18. passed by a leamed Single Judge W.P. No. 19995 of 2007, whereby the learned liingle Judge has modified the punishment order of the resp,rndent, writ petitioner, from'penalry of tuo annaal grade in'renenb wilh cumwlatirc (Jitr' to one of^'penalfl oJ' two annaal gnrde increments uithout unt /at,;ue efec/'. The leamed Single Judgi has funher directed that the petitioner would not receive a,ly monetary benefits.

¶30

Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, the leamed Standing Counsel for the appellants, submits that the modification so nade bythe leamed Single Judge has been made without assil;nrng proper reasons. trlloreover, the denial of monetary berLefits by the leamed Single Judge is unciear. Therefore, the leamed counsel has prayed that the impugned order slrould be set aside, and^'he case should be remanded back tc th: leamed Single Judge.

¶31

On the other hand, Mr. G. Ravi Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the present case,

¶32

HCJ & AAR, J W.A. No. 211 of 2019 Dt:04-03-2020

¶33

)

¶34

the petitioner has already retired in the lear 2019. Theref ore, to force the petitioner to go back to the leamed Single Judge would impose hardsfr.ip upon a retiree, who is in the dusk of his life. Moreover, the leamed Single Judge has already used the phrase^'enfu of .fastice woa/d be met'. According to the Ieamed counsel, since the leamed Single Judge had found the punishment meted out to the petitioner to be shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, the leamed Single Judge was^justified in modifying the punishment order rn tne rnterests ot lustlce.

¶35

l-zst!, stnce no monetary benefits have been given to the petitioner during the punishment period, he would be entitied to receive the monetary benefits only at the end of the punishment period. Therefore, the learned counsel has opposed the setting aside of the impugned order, and remanding of the case back to the leamed Single Judge.

¶36

Heard both the leamed counsel for the panies, and perused the impugned order.

¶37

This case tums on its own peculiar facts and circumstances, nane[, that the petitioner has already retired in

¶38

.1 TICJ & AAR, J W A. No. 211 of2019 Dr:04-03-2020

¶39

the year 2C19. Therefore, to force the petitioner tc) go back to the leamed Single Judge is to impose hard,rhip upon a retlree

¶40

Although the learned Single Judge is not <1uite explicit in his reasoning, but the use of the words 'ends cf iur/ice wou/d be met'clearly indicates that implicitly his^judicirl c onsclotl^s has been applied. Since the leamed Singie Judge found the imposition of a major punishment to be shockingly disproponionate to the alleged misconduct, in rhe interests of^justice, the learned Single Judge has interfered wrth the impugned punishment order.

¶41

it is also to be noted that the writ petition was filed in the lear 2a07, and was finally decided after a r inordinate delay of eleven 1rean. Therefore, the petitioner rad suffered the major puiishment for eleven long years. L is, in these peculiar cilrumstances, that the learned Single Judge was justified in modifying the major punishment to nLinor one.

¶42

Moreover, the leamed Single Judge has al,o protected the financiai interest of the Coqporation by clearll- indicating

¶43

HCJ & AAR, J W.A. No. 211 of 2019 Dtr 04-03-2020

¶44

¶45

that the petitioner would not be entitled ro any monerary benefit.

¶46

Flence, this C-ourt does not find any illegaliry or perversity in the impugned order. However, it is clarfied that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and should not form a precedent.

¶47

For the reasons stated above, this writ appeal is dismissed.

¶48

fu a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending iI any,

¶49

stand dismissed as infructuous.

¶50

SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri. B. Mayur Reddy, SC for APSRTC^(OPUC)

¶56

One CC to Sri. Venkateswerllu Kesamsetty, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶57

Two CD Copies.

PIV

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410312020

ORDER

WA.No.211 oI 2019

Lr , i l:Ln l,'.
/,2
/
,:.<br>'U
$ r
)
* /
H. * ,/.;/
r.

¶65

DISMISSING THE W.A.

¶66

,)
@q<br>W"

The Regional Manager v. Mohd. Sadiq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Manager v. Mohd. Sadiq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Chakradhar Reddy Vs G Raveen Kumar

Swapna Dhuduka Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Smt. G.Kavitha Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Jabbar Shaik Vs The State of Telangana

Lavudya Shailaja Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

The Apsrtc Vs B. Gopya