Two judges of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by TSRTC against a Single Judge's order modifying a departmental penalty imposed on a respondent driver, noting the issue was already addressed in a related appeal.
Suspended operation of judgment denied; Writ Appeal dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REODY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 465 OF 2019
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 1811212018 passed in WP No 8576 of 2003 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS
AND
G.S.Gangadhar, S/o Gangaram, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Driver, E No. 304292, Rio Khanapoor,.Adilabad District.
...RESPONDENT
lA NO: 2 OF 2019
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 operation of thejudgment made in WP No.8576 of 2003 dated 18.12.2018, pending disposal of the writ Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. RAVI BABU, SC FOR TSRTC
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P. GOVINDA RAJULU
The Court delivered the following:
THE H()N'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HoN'BLE SR,I JUSTICE C.V.BHASXAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.465 of 2Ol9
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'bte the Chief Justice Ujjat Shugan)
Heard Mr. A. Ravi Babu, Iearned counsel for the appellants a rd Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel lor the re spondent
2 HC] & CVBRJ W.A.No.465 of 2O 19
resulted in the death of a cvclist named Sri Sreehari. On O3.O7.1997 he had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent rnanner due to which the vehicle met with the accident with the cyclist Sri Sreehari, who sustained grievous injuries ald succumbed to his injuries in Government Hospital, Nizamabad on 03.07.1997 itself. Thereafter, a departmental \VAS inquiry was conducted, following which respondent imposed punishment of deferment of his annual increment f<rr el period of two years having its effect on his future increments.
\
4
3 IICJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.465 of 201 9
.ludge considered the rival submissions whereafter a view.was taken that :he revisional authority ought to have imposed the punishment ol reduction of pay by tu'o incremental stages for :I period ol' two years without cumulative effect instead of making the same with cumulative effect. Accordingly, learned Single Jud;:,e modified the punishment clarifyrng that the same w.ouli be '*,ithout any monetary benefit. It is this order 'ur,hichis unrler impugnment in the present appeal.
7 .1. L,,:arned counsel for the respondent supports the order passerl by the learned Single Judge.
B. f.iter hearing learned counsel for the parties and/ on due consiCeration, we find that an identical issue has been
HC] & CVBRJ W.A.No.465 of 2019
4
dealt with by this bench in Writ Appeai No.474 of 2Ol9 decided on O1.O9.2022. It has been held as follows:
" I 1. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that the order dated 17.05.1997 is not a speaking order. Without assig-ning any reasons, disciplinary authority irnposed the major penalty on the respondent. The appeilate authority also merely rejected the appeal. While the disciplinary authority was silent as regards holding of any enquiry, the appellate authority on its own recorded that a detailed enquiry was conducted by Sri Ganesh Prasad, Senior Traffic Inspector of SRCL Depot, wherein the charges leveled against the respondent were held proved. If this is the position, ihen the disciplinary authority ought to have referred to and discussed about the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, after serving a copy of the same to the respondent and calling for his representation.
r'
J HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.4(t5 of 2019
10.(-onsequently, the Writ Appeal rs dismissed.
Horvever, th: re shall be no order as to costs.
1 1. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
anr, in this \Vrit Appeal, shall stand closed.
SD/. T. SRINIVAS I DEPUTYAEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t :I-) SECTION OFFICER
To,
BSR
HIGH COURT
DATED:17110t2022
,r::::<br>T,A €
,(
I
I
1s [tc ilfl
.c
..'
, i . -. ,. ...,.i '.).:.t
.- .:, '..,-.
JUDGMENT
WA.No.465 of ;2019
DISMISIING T}IE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT CO$TS.
vr6_
OS \tr-
gsc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Single Judge modifying a departmental penalty from cumulative effect to without cumulative effect.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Appeal No. 474 of 2019Referred¶42
Writ Appeal No. 474 of 2019
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Now TSRTC)
G.S. Gangadhar
Ujjal Bhuyan
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
