Dismissed

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Hyd.( Now Tsrtc) v. M. Ashalu

Telangana HC1 Sept 2022WA/474/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ appeal filed by TSRTC challenging a Single Judge's order modifying a disciplinary punishment. The Bench upheld the Single Judge's modification removing cumulative effect and monetary benefit, noting the appeal was moot due to the pendency of the related writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; order of the Single Judge modifying the punishment is upheld; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand dismissed.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

; I

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CH]EF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 474OF 2o1S

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause l5 of the Letters Patent^prefened against the^{order dated} 'lO-12-2O18 in W.P.No.19918 ot 2O02 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Hyd.^{( Now TSRTC),rep.} by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad,^Hyderabad

¶10

Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,^(Now TSRTC), Karimnagar, Karminagar District

¶11

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

AND

¶13

M. Ashalu, S/o Rajam, Sircilla, Karimnagar District

¶14

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto suspend the orders passed in W.P.No.19918 ol 2OO2 d|.1O.12.2018.

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. RAVI BABU, S.C. FOR TSRTC

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI P. GOVINDA RAJULU (NOT PRESENT)

¶19

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

--t

¶21

I i

¶22

I I II i i I ,I i i ! I i I I

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE^{UJJAL BHTIYAN} AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR^REDDY W.A.No. 474 of²⁰¹⁹

¶25

IUDGMENT^{rpcr rt e Hat'bhttu r hft[]kn.?Ijpl Bhqa,t)}

¶26

Heard Mr. A.Ravi tlabu, learned Standing^Counselflor Telangana State Road Transport Corporation CISRTC)^appearing for the appcllants. None has appeared^{for the respondent.}

¶27

This writ appeal IS directed against the order dzted 10.12.2018 passcd bv the^{learned Single} Judge^allowing \W.P.N<I.1 99 1 8 ol 2002 filccl bv the rcspondent as the writ PetluOnef.

¶28

()rder darcd 10.12.2018 is a short one and is extracted in its entirery*, which rcads as undcr:

¶29

Petitioner who was working as cooductor^{in the} respondcnt - corporanon, was charged sheeted^for cash ancl rickct irrcgularides and in the inquiry,^{he was} fourrd guilry, and evcnruallr', thc Depot Manager of thc^{(.rrrporation,} r,idc proceedings dated¹⁷ -05-1997, imposcd thc punishmcnt o[ reducdon of his pay^by tl<.r incrcrncntal stagcs for a pcriod of two years with curntrlativc eflect.^(.hallcnging thc samc, petitioner

¶30

¶31

filcd appeal before the appellate authority and by impugned proceedings dated 27-11-2001, the 2nd rcspondent - Divisional Manager, the appellate authority, confirmed rhe same. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is 6led.

¶32

Learned counsel For the petitioner submits that this court in similar facts and circumstances in '0fl.P.No.20089 ot 2009 dated 03-10-2018 modifred the punishmenr imposed by the appellate authority to that of reduction of pay by trvo incremental stages for a period o[ two years without cumulative effect. Furdrer rhis court held that the modified punishment is withour eny monetary benefit. He submits that similar order may be passed in the present writ petition.

¶33

Learned Standing Counsel for the rcspondent _ (-orporation does not dispute the same.

¶34

In vicw of order dated 03-10-201g in W.P.No.20089 of 2009 and for the reasons alike, the presenr writ perition is disposed of rnodi$ing the punishment imposed by the appellate authority to the effect that reduction of pay by two incrernental sr2ges [<rr a pcriod of rwo ycars, shall not have cumulative cffect. It is madc clear that the above modified punishment is without any monetary bene6ts. No <,lrdcr as to cos ts.

::3::

I I I

Irrom the above, it is seen that respondent is a conductor

¶39

serving with appellant No.1. Irollowing disciplinary proceedings, he was imposed punishment, on 17.05.1997, o[ reduction of pay by two incremental stagcs [or a period of rwo years having cumulative effect.

¶40

(ihallenging the said order dated 17.05.1997, respondent fi.led

¶41

an appezl, which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 27.11.2001. Thercafrer, rhe related wrir petition came to be filed by the respondent as thc writ peridoner

¶42

f'here was a consensus in the related writ proceeding that in identjcal writ pecition being W.P.No.20089 of 2009, learned Single Judge^{had modified the punishmenraide order} dated 03.10.2018 by substituting the abovc punishment of 'with cumularive eflfect, to that of 'without cumularivc e flecC and clarifying rhar rhe modifred punishment would bc u,uhout anv monirorv bcneftt.

¶43

¶44

V/hen it is poinrcd our, lcarned Standing Counsel for rhe appellants O'SR'fq submits that subse<1ucndy, the aforesaid order

¶45

4.:

¶46

dated 03.10.2018 was assailed by the appellants in !7.A.No.1655 o[ 2018, which was allowcd aide ludgment and order dated 13.12.2018.

¶47

We have perused the judgment and order dated 73J22018 in W.A.No.1655 ol 2018 and find that a Coordinate Bench o[ this Court took thc view that such modification in penalry was without recording anv reasons. However, Coordinate Bench accepted the proposal that IN appropriate cases, the writ court would be compctcnt to substitute the punishment imposed by the disciplinary aurhori$.' but for that, reasons must be recorded.

¶48

r\ftcr sctting aside the ordcr dated 03.10.2018, the mater was remanded back to the learncd Single Judge for a fresh considcration.

¶49

¶50

10.⁽⁾ⁿ a further query by the Court, learned Standing Counsel for thc appcllar.rts submits that to his information, W.P.No.20089 of 2009 is still pcnding bcfore thc lcarned Single Judge on remand.

1 I

t {

------7

11 Reverting back to the facts o[ the present case, we find that the order dated 17.05.1997 is not a speaking order. Without assigning any reasons, disciplinary authoriry imposed the major penalty on the respondent.^'fhe appellate authority also merely reiected thc appeal. While the disciplinary authority was silent as regards holding o[ any cnquiry, the appellate aurhority on its own recorded that a detailed encluiry was conducted by Sri Ganesh Prasad, Senior Tralfic Inspector of SRCL Depot, wherein the charges leveled against thc respondent were held provcd. If this is the position, then the disciplinary authority oughr to have referred to and discussed about the re port submittcd by thc Enquiry Ofhcer, after serving a copy o[ rhc samc to thc rcspondent and calling for his representation.

¶57

From the abovc, it is cvidenr that the due procedure was not follorved be fore imposing thc mai()r penalw on the respondent. As a mafter o[ fact, such imp<-rsition o[ penalry without fotlowing the due process, would warrant setting aside thc samc in its cntirety. Howcver, as the rcspondcnt has not qucstioncd the modihed

¶58

::6::

¶59

¶60

punishment, we would not like to enter into this aspect oF the

¶61

matter.

¶62

Nonetheless, having regard to the above, we feel that learncd SingleJudge was^jusdfred in modifying the punishment imposed on the respondent from one having cumulative effect to that of

¶63

'without cumulative efflect and without monitory benefit'.

¶64

Therefore, no intcrferencc is callcd for.

¶65