Disposed

The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, v. P. Ramaswamy

Telangana HC8 Nov 2021WA/260/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the Single Judge's order which had relaxed the employee's punishment. The appellate authority's modified punishment was upheld, but continuity of service for pension and terminal dues was granted.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of; the Single Judge order was set aside, and the appellate authority order was upheld with a direction to grant continuity of service for pension and terminal dues.

The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Vs P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE^{CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY}

¶5

WRIT APPEAL : 260 0F 19

¶6

writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters PatentAppeal preferred against the} order dated 20-12-2018^{passedin w.P.No.13BBB ol 2014 on the file of the Highcourt} Between:

¶7

The Dv. chief Traffic^{Manager, A.P. State RoadTransportcorporation(NowTSRTC)'} Karimnagar, Karimnagar^District.

¶8

...AppellanUResPondent

¶9

AND

¶10

P. Ramaswamv, S/o. Venkataiah,^{aged about 50 years, Sripuram Colony'} Karimnagar, Karimnagar^District.

¶11

...RespondenUPetitioner

¶12

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶13

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto suspend the} orders^{passedin W.P.No.13888of 2004 dt20'12'2018 pending disposalof the writ} appeal.

¶14

Counsel for the^{Appellant:SRl. A. RAVIBABU,(SCFOR TSRTC)}

¶15

Counsel for^{the Respondent: SMTS.V. INDIRA}

¶16

The Court delivered^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶17

THE HON'BL ' THE CHIEP JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRC. SIIARMA AND

¶18

THE H( 'N'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶19

WRIT APPEAL No.26O of 2Ol9

¶20

JUDG!4_EX-T: | !t tiLe ol bLe r/(.⁽ /,relJusr,(e saris/, ..r,u/...,r( s, r,,,(l

¶21

The pre sent writ appeal is arising out of order dated 20.12.2018 passed in W.P.No.13888 of 2OO4 by the learned Singie Judge.

¶22

The lacts of the case reveal that the

¶23

respondent/e mployee before this Court was appointed as a Conductor in the services of Telangana State Road Transport Corporation i,nd while discharging his duties on 15.07.2020, he allegedly :ommitted misconduct and a charge sheet n,as issued on 03 08.2020. The department enquiry vras held and t he Enquiry )fflicer found the respondent/ emplovee guriltl. in respect of t re irregularities relating to ticketing and not collcctrng ca: h from certain passengers. An order of removal rvas passed :n 02.Ii.2000 and, thereafter, an appeal u,as prel'erred be,iore the appellate authorit'. The appellate authority ha; passed order dated 15.02.2001 modifying the punishment to that of stoppage of two annual increments with cumular ive effect and also denied continuity of service.

¶24

the Learnerl counsel appearing for

¶25

appellant/ co^'poration has informed this Court that there was no cause f rr the learned Single Judge to modify the punishment as has been done in the matter to that of

¶26

¶27

stoppage of two annual increments^{without cumuiative effect.} He has stated that keeping in view the^{misconduct, the major} punishment of removal was imposed and thereafter^the appellate authority keeping in vieu' the^{past trackrecord.} purely on humanitarian consideration, has taken^{a lenietl t} view of reinstatement of the^{respondent/employee,the order} passed by the learned Single Judge deserves^{to be set aside.}

¶28

On the other side, learned counsel^{appearing for the} respondent/employee has stated^{before this Court that the} respondent/employee has already^{attained the age of} superannuation and. therefore,^{once again lenient view may} be shown to him.

¶29

This Court has carefully^gone through^{the chargesheet,} the order of removal as well as^{the order passed by the} learned Single Judge. The matter^{was relatingto cashand} ticket irregularities and at the first^{place, the order of removal} was passed oo O2.1 1.2000. The^{appellate authorit]' has} certainly taken a^very lenient^{view in the matterb1' modifliug} the punishment to that^{of stoppageof two annualincrements} with cumulative effect. In the^{consideredopinion of this} Court, the order^passed by the^{appellate authority on} 15.02.200 1 was not at a1l^{disproportionately shocking} keeping in view the misconduct^{committed bythe} respondent/employee and therefore^{could not havebeen} interfered with. Resultantly, the^{order dated 20.12.2018} passed by the learned Single Judge is set^{aside' The order}

¶30

dated 15.02.2 )0 1 passed by the appeilate authorit],modiI_vir-rg thr prrnishme :tt to that of stoppage of tr.l,o atnnual increments u ith cumlrlatt re elfect is upheld. Hor.r,ever, the employee shall be entitled for continuity in service in the matter of grant of terminal dues as well as pension without monetarv benefits.

¶31

With tht aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

¶32

Miscella eeous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶33

appeal shall s:and closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

SD/- C.V.MALLIKARJUNA VARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 Ilq_Of thief^-raffic Manager, Ap. State Road Transport Corporation (Now TSRTC), Karimr aqar, Karimn-aoar District One CC Io Sri A Ravi Babu, SE FoR TSRTC.ToPUCI 2,) 9n" 99^{to Smt. t.V. tndira,Advocate} tOpUCj 4 Two CD Copies 5 One Spare Cop' CHR

A_--

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112021

JUDGMENT

1 ? I I{:
^r
tl:
I
c(i--) 1 I N0vlfi?l f)
..t' f /
t)l:sPi,.1

¶44

W.A.No.260 cf 2019

¶45

DISPOSING CF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT C )STS.

¶46

f:u Ibl

¶47

The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, v. P. Ramaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, v. P. Ramaswamy

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

T Yakaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Y.Srinivasa Rao and 6 others Vs The State of Telangana

E Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital and Research Centre Vs The Presiding Oficer

State of Telangana and 3 others Vs G.Sathyawathi and 42 others

The State of Telangana Vs Thripurala Suresh