Disposed

R.P. Rao v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC1 Nov 2023WP/30139/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a suspension order. The Court declined to interfere with the suspension at that stage but directed respondents to consider the petitioner's explanation before taking further action.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's explanation before taking any action against him.

R.P. Rao Vs The Telangana State Road Transport… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^321e ]

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

WEDNESDAY,^{THE FIRSTDAY OF NOVEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYTHREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶7

WRIT PETI TION^{NO: 30 1390F 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

R.P. Rao, S/o.^{Nageshwar Rao,Aged about 56 Years' Occ;Assistant Depo]Clerk} tAbcl'n7"^{isnic]-e-irorr"hZlim-oepotBhadradri, Bhadradrr Kothaqudem District}

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Telangana^{State RoadTransport Corporation'Repby its lVlanaging} Director, It4usheerabad,^Hyderabad'

¶13

2, The Regional^{Manager, Khammam Region, Khammam District-}

¶14

The Depot^{Manager,T.S.R.T.C, Bhadrachalam Depot' Bhadradri'} Kothagudem^District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

PetitionUnderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith' the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an^{appropriatewrit, order or direction more particularly one in} the nature^{of wRlT oF MANDAMUS declaringthe proceedingsNo El /197(0'1 )} t2o23.BcMdatedo7-l0.2023ofthe3.drespondentisillegal,arbitrary,unjust contrary to^{the T.S.R.T.C.(Service) Regulationsand evidence on recordand} Violationoftheprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandaswellasthefundamentalrights guaranteedUndertheConstitutionoflndiaSetasidethesameandconsequently direct the respondents^{to continuethe petitioneras a Assistant DepotClerk} (ADC) at 3'd resPondent^DePot'

¶17

l.A.NO:1 O F 2023

¶18

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High court maybe pleasedto}

¶19

direct the 3'd respondent to continue the petrtioner as a Assi:jtant Depot Clerk (ADC) by suspending the proceedings No.E'1/197 (O1\ 12O23-,CM dated 07-.1 0- 2023_

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.JAGAN

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI A.SRINIVASA REDDY, SC FOR RTC

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

I I ! I I i

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTTCE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶25

W.P.No. 30139 of 2023

¶26

OR.DER:

¶27

In this u,rit petition, the petitioner is seeking a t rit of mandamus to declare the Proceedings No.E1/ 197(0lll2023 BCM, dated 07 .1O.2023 of the respondent No.3 placing the petitioner r.rnder suspension, as illegal, arbitrarv anrl in violation of the principles of natural justice and con secl ucr-rth,, to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as a Assistant Depot Clerk (ADC) at the respondent No.3 depot and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the duty chart, the petitioner was required to work at L.B.Nagar, but due to sickness, he had reported at Bhadradri Kothagudem and on oral instructions and permission from the Depot Manager, he started attending to duties at Bhadradri Depot. It is submitted that there is no dereliction of duties on his part, but without any reason, the petitioner has been placed under suspension and the respondents are

_--..rr--

i ! I I

(

PJilD,J $'.P No. 3(,739 oJ 2023

¶35

proceedillq \'ith crr(luir\ and therelore, hc is ch allenging the suspel.l sl'Jn orcler

¶36

Mr.A.Srinivas Redd1,, Learned Stan<ling Counsel for the t-csponclcrrts, horvevcr, pointed out rhert I hr: petitioner \'as not r|orking at the place where he was slrpp,)sed to $,ork and thc:'e can be no or:tl instructions or pcrmis:;ion to u,ork at Bhadradri Depot. t{e subrnitted that since the enquin, Olficer has bcen appointed, enquiry wouid be collducted and actron^q'ill be taken in accordance rvith lau,.

¶37

Learnerl connsel for the petitioner at this stage praved that the cxplanation given by the pctitioner may be directed to be considered by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry lrt: concludcd within a time frame.

¶38

ln vieu, of the above submissions of both the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the suspensior] order at this stage. Hou'ever, ln the interest of justice, this Court directs the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioner before taking any action against the petitioner.

¶39

¶40

PMD,J W.P.No. 30139 oJ 2023

¶41

Accordinglr'. this rvrit petition 1S disposed ol

¶42

There shall be no order as to costs

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶44

rvrit petition, shall stand closed

¶45

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CT

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

¶48

The Managing Director,^{TelanganaState Road Transport Corporation'} Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶49

The Regional Manager,^{Khammam Region, Khammam District.}

¶50

The De[ot tt/anageiT.S.R.T^{C, Bhadrachalam Depot Bhadradri Kothagudem} District.

¶51

One CC to Sri A.Jagan, Advocate IOPUC]

¶52

One CC to Sri A.srinivasa^{Reddy, SC FOR RTC} [OPUC]

6 Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 11112023

i
e STAIC
1
,7
o
cf, 2 ?- N0! ?[?1 .b
o +
I
t
()ESpAlC

¶61

ORDER

¶62

WP.No.3O139 of 2023

¶63

DISPOSING OF'tHE W.P

¶64

WITIIOUT COSTS.

¶65

\6 rl t9

R.P. Rao v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.P. Rao v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

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

Siddharth Vs The State of Telangana

Pachipala Venkata Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Mehboob Vs The State of Telangana

Vaddepally Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Garla Sreenu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Salauddin Vs The State of Telangana