Dismissed

Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (Now Tsrtc), v. N.V. Gopal

Telangana HC23 Nov 2021WA/475/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by TSRTC against Single Judge order modulating departmental punishment to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Court found absence was due to medical reasons and dismissed the appeal upholding the lower court order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal No. 475 of 2019 dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions closed. No order as to costs.

Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 475 OF 2019

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal files against the order dated 29-10-2018 in WP No. 22871 of 2002 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation^(Now TSRTC),,^{Rep. by Vice} Chairman AND Managing Director Musheerabad,^Hyderabad.

¶10

The Regional Manager. Andhra Pradesh Road^{Trarypo$Corporation(Now} TSRTC); Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar, KarimnagarDistrlti.r.,=.roor*r,

¶11

AND

¶12

N.V. Gopal,, S/o. Matchaiah, Ased about^{70 years, ,"n]Lr#3e5rt3pr1frB3i,?l3,I,El}

¶13

lA NO: ? OE2q!9

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the^{judgment madein WP No.22871of 2002 daled} 29.1O.2018,^pending disposal of the^{writ Appeal and pass}

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI^{A. RAVIBABU(SC FOR TSRTC)}

¶16

Counsel for Respondent: SRI^{M. RAMGOPALRAO}

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE I'HE CHIEF JUSTIC)E SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ANI)

¶20

THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶21

WRIT APPEAL No.475 of 2Ol9

¶22

JUDGMENT: ,',

¶23

The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 29.1O.2O1.8 passed in W.P.No.22871 of 2OO2 by the learned Single Judge.

¶24

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent/employee was absent from January, 1998 to November, 1998 totalling to 76 days. He was issued a show cause notice on 15.04.1999 and after holding a departmental enquiry ar order of removal was passed on 07.05.1999. He preferred arl appea-l, which was rejected and thereafter, he preferred a review and the reviewing authority by an order datecl 07 .O2.2OOO directed reinstatement of the respondent/ e m plol ee and inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment u,ith cumulative effect, against which, the emplovee has preferred a u'rit petition and the learned Single Judge has moderated the punishment to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.

¶25

Learned counsel for the employee has drawn the attention of this Court towards the departmental enquiry and undisputedly the employee was not well. He submits that the employee was suffering from an acute renal problem and he did not submit medical certificate in respect of his illness in time and that was the

¶26

¶27

reason for interfering with the punishment order passed by the reviewing authority.

¶28

In the considered opinlon of this Court, the absence \,as on account of medical reasons. The emplol'ee vvas suffering from^renal disorder and a certificate was on record. Therefore, the^iearned Single Judge was^justified in disposing of the writ^{petition by} treating the punishment as stoppage of one increment^without cumulative effect. This Court does not find^{any reasonto interfere} with the order passed by the learned Single^Judge.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed-

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall^{stand closed. There}

¶31

shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

SD/-C.V.MALLIKARJ^UNAVARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶35

¶36

SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

To'1. On" CC to Sri A Ravi Babu(SC FOR TsRT,C-)idvocate [OPUC] i. 5; 6c 6^{Sri M Ramgopal'Rao Advocate[oPUc]}

¶38

Two CD CoPies

¶39

One SPare^CoPY MBC anvs\r

¶40

HIGH^COURT

¶41

DATED:^2311112021

¶42

,iI,a *l t.,i c,f
tt
1t Eit?tfl
Lr
:.
JUDGMENT

¶43

WA.No.475^{of 2019}

¶44

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT APPEAL}

¶45

WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

,.{<br>x-<br>(s )
,)
*r<br>,lr{ b

Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (Now Tsrtc), v. N.V. Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (Now Tsrtc), v. N.V. Gopal

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

The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Vs M.N.Reddy

Narsing Bhan Singh, Mahabubnagar Dist Vs Prl. Secretary, Revenue(Da-Cmrf)/Gad Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

Community Organization for Peoples emancipation Vs The State of Telangana and 8 Others

The Depot Manager Vs Donka Rahaiah

Chiluka Chandrasekhar Vs The Commissioner of Police

Ms. Sns Starch Limited Vs State of Telangana