Dismissed

J.V. Rao, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Telangana HC21 Feb 2023WP/29303/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a petitioner's writ petition challenging the imposition of a two-year pay reduction as punishment for rash driving causing an accident. The Court held the punishment was not disproportionate given the employee's clean record and his reinstatement, noting that criminal acquittal does not preclude disciplinary action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to set aside the reduction in pay and restore increments is dismissed.

J.V. Rao, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:29303 OF 2013

¶8

J.V. Rao. S/o. Anian Rao,.Agg{ about 46 years, Driver(E-800153), APSRTC, Na raya nkhed Bud Depot,'rr/e"aak rti;i;i"i, d F.'^"

¶9

I ll.re lesionat^{Manaser, ApsRrc,Xle?ak} Region, M"drk Di.tr;;P, ;:TtoNER ? Jl,',u^{pv chief rrafficManag_er,} aesRic, rvi;E;i iregio;, nl"-il"r'oi.irr.t. n.p 3. rhe Depor Manaser, ApsRic; Nrijiaiiril d;. ojpoi, tr,rJj;k di;ilil;,b

¶10

Petition under Articte 226 of the constitution of tndia ,rSt":'3],T''[: circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of lvlandamus decraring that the action of the respondent No. t herein in not cancerring the modified punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent herein as bad arbitrary illegal by setting aside the balance punishment mentioned in proc. No. PN20(32)12010-Dy.crM/MR. dt. 18-05-2010 of the respondent No. 2 herein and consequential proc. dt. 17-06-2011 of respondent No. .t herein and direct the respondents to restore the reduced increments _ of the petitioner with proper fixation and treat the period from removar to reporting duty as on duty for a[ the purpose.

¶11

l.A. NO:1 oF 2013(WPMP. NO: 36404 OF 2013)

¶12

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents restore the reduced increments of the petitioner in concerned with Proc.No.PA,/20(32)r2010-Dy.crMlMR. dt. 18-05-2010 of the respondent No. 2 herein.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRt A.SR|NIVAS REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the foltowing: ORDER

¶14

;l ;t th 2

¶15

THE I{I. N,BLE SRI TUSTICE A.ABHISHEK RE,l )Dy h'RTT PETITION No,29303 of 2013

¶16

ORD ER:

¶17

This wn t r etition is fileri se^king the following relie f:

¶18

,,.. rc ,sue a lont or o rder or direction more particularltr one i.t tlu nn.ttr,, (, t,\ut ^r ,, \nt ol A,lotub nts rltclning thnt the acHon c,. th,: lespo aenl I,t^.i hertin ut n can*llinT tle motiiferl puntshtnen'' imposea by tht .r,trp5p6nj1,111r,ot ns lt.nd' nrhitrory, itlL'gnl \1 *:ttrng astdc trt b,rn, 1, 1111n15111,r,,,, ,'lt'"' tttittttr:Ll in Prcc No'PAD0(3?)./)-t.)10' Dy.(-rL^.1R t)t.18-05-20I0 tlu rcspondcnt No 2 ltreit utl cottseque,ttial 7t )(. Dt.17-06-20tt/ "f "t,'u"funt^{Noj rerLrn} nnd airecr rhe respo,tdL,tltt; .() restore ,,,r, ,.r't ittrrcnrcttls of the petiliturcr t itlt proper JiTotiott ,rl trtnt tltt, 1tt,t-it ttl frotn rtttrottnl to reporting dtthl ts cn duty fttr a,r tlr.:7t 17,11s, .

¶19

It is the cas,, of the pciitior-rer that he was appoirtlt,,d as a casual driver in lhr: r<:spondcnt Corporation on 2g.0.1.799(. and his services were regul:.ised on 37.07.1997. It is stated that rtirile he was performin6t his ( uty on 29.05.2009 with rhe bus b,:aring l,Jo.r\p 2822482on the rour Narayankhed to Sangareddy, the bus. .,;yhir:h was driven by hirn, d s.hed an allto Subsequently, he was fu,s;.red a charge sheet alr,ng ,, ;11., g_,,e suspension order dated Lg.0,i..1009. Thereafter, an enquirv was conclucted and finally he wag rern<.,verl from service ade Jrl'o:(' rlinl;s da iecl 22.O2.2}ll.Challenging th 3l;aic

¶20

¶21

-I

¶22

proceedings, the petitioner had filed an appeal and the respondetrt No.Z aidt the order dated 18.05.2010 has set aside the pturishrnent o( remova! from service and orclered reinstaterrrent of the petitioner' into service, but has imposed the punishment of reduction of his pay by two incrernental stages, for a period of two years with curnulative effect. The period of rentoval from service and the date of reporting to duty was directed to be treated as'Not on Duty' for all purposes and also for the purpose of accounting for seniority of drivers GradeJI. Af ter reinstatement, the petitioner has filed a review petition, but. *re same was rejected by the respondent No.1 oide proceedings dated 17.06.2011.. Hence, the present writ petition

¶23

The leamed counsel for the petitioner has stated that tlte respondent No.2 ought not to have imposed the punishment of tlvo incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative^effect, duly taking into consideration the unblemished^{and clean record of} the petitioner. The learned counsel has drawn^{the attention of this} Court to the^judgment dated 29.06.2012,^{passedby the learned} |udicial^{Magistrateof First Class at Narayankhed, in C.C.No.328of} 2009, whereunder the petitioner^was found^{not guilty of the offences}

¶24

punishabi€ un- rr Sections 304(A), 337 and 33g i.p (-. a rd u,as acquitted io, tl-r said offences.^'r'he learned c.ur,sel i.ras further stated that dur: to the irni:osition of the above pun s,:tment, the petitioner is beir g put to great financial loss, and therel<rre, prayed this Court to set rside the punishment impugned in the,trder dah:d 18.05.2010.

¶25

Per contra the learned Standing Counsel apoearine; on behzLlf of the r,:spo r lcnts has vehemently opposed the ver.y maintainabilitl rI the present writ petition. L.earnecl standir,g Counsel has s{a: d that tl-re vcry fact that the petitiorrr:r har; been reinstated ir to ,;e' vice itself is a major relief grantecl to the. oeL tionerr and that the pei:it >ner drove the bus in a rash and,eglig:r.Lt ,,.ann€,r and hit the arrt,t as a result of which, a passengeri ,vho was havelling ir the said au to, had expired. Therefore, ta l:in1; into consicleratiorr to t lity of the circumstances, the punisrLment of removal front s.ri .ce, as ordered by the Disciplinary Authoritl; war; set aside ar d *r , peLitioner was reinstated htrt serzir:e whikt imposing the pr nishment of reduction of his pa1 by twc, incremental stager for a period of two years with ctrmulati.r,e effect.

¶26

¶27

¶28

I-he leamed Standing Counscl has furthc; sl.atecl that the petitioner cannot be leL off and scot free without imposing anyr punishmenL as he was invoh,ecl in a fatal accident, which r.esulted in the death of a passenger/ who was travelling in auto.

¶29

Admittedly, in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has lound thc petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and imposed a penalty of removal lrom the service. Aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, duly taking into consideration the clean record of the petitioner, while setting aside the order of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary ^-tuthority, has reinstated the petitioner into service, and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

¶30

Adrnittedly, due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the bus driven by him dashed the auto, which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result of which, six passengers travelling in the said auto received severe injuries and one passenger succumbed to injuries in the hospital.

¶31

¶32

lt is rvet settled iaw that rnerely because the 1:sfr1iens1. ig acqui tteci in a :riminal case, it does not 1n ariy m. :-'' ler can be construed that he respondent authorities cann()t iak(, an'/ act.on against tht' s;rit employee. The authorities are n,ell vr,ithin th eir rights to taker r ressary disciplinary action against t-rr: eraplol,ee without rel'erern, : to the result of the criminal case

¶33

As r ghtli pointed out by the learnecl StandLrg (-rtursel, the Appellate ,\uthr rity, while setting aside the proce,eding s, cf remorzal from servi,'e, L. s reinstated thc petitioner into sen,i:e, arLd only imposed the pur ishnrent of reduction of his pay bv two u-rcrt,mental stages for a peri( i of two years with cumulative el.fect

¶34

Havi-rg rr: ;ard to the facts and circumstancrls of ttr,:: case, this Court is of the c,: rsidered view that the imposition of th: trbove said punishment is n ,t disproportionate to the charges levr ll,,,d ,lgainst the petitioner. I [oreover, the petitioner has been gran ted a maj,:r relief of reirstatr rlent into service by the Appellate At tl-tority arrd therefore, irnpos tion of punishment of reductiotl of l)ay t,y tr,r.o incremental stagr s fey a period of two years with curnula tivt, effe,:t cannot be sarid tr: be either harsh or disproportionate to tl.e charges

¶35

¶36

¶37

levelled against the pctitioner. Therefore, this CourL rloes not finrl-

¶38

any infirmil"y in the impugned order

¶39

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissecl

¶40

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any shall also stancl

¶41

dismissed. fhere shall be no ordel as to costs

¶42

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT R IST //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER

¶43

To 1. One CC to SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAo, Advocqle IOPqql - i: O;; CC^{iO SNI A.SRINIVAS REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC]}

¶44

Two CD^CoPies

PSK GJP

HIGH COUIIT

AAR,J

DATED:21 tt 2t2023

ORDER

--a
.21 - t.i Srr
€ oi
,i !$ <br>/, :.
iJ 'i ? tiA( ztril Jtt't
(:
'.).'.i
<br>...

¶51

WP.No.2930: of 2013

¶52

DISMISSING^'I HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO iTS.

¶53

,c
( ) )
\tt

J.V. Rao, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.V. Rao, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

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

V.Sudhakar, Vs the Commissioner of Endowments

Nune Komuramma Vs Vegalla Ramchandar

B.Laxman Vs the Zonal Manager, LIC of India

Akkireddy Surendar Reddy Vs Smt. K. Madhavi

Smt. Y.Laxmi w/o Raj Kumar, Vs The Executive Director

Rathnavath Chaithanya Vs Rathnavath Bansilal