Dismissed

K. Mallesham, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/30778/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised judicial review in a writ petition challenging termination of a contract driver's services. The court found violations of natural justice, including ex-parte enquiry, and ordered reinstatement as a contract driver without back wages subject to observation.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement as contract driver without service benefits or back wages within two months of the order, subject to medical examination and a one-year observation period.

K. Mallesham, Vs Telangana State Road Transport… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

; u

[³³⁰³ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶6

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 30778 OF 2016

¶10

Between:

¶11

K. Mallesham, aged about 40 years, C 16812, Cont Driver, Musheerabad depot, Ukondi Village, Munugodu Mandal, Nalgonda dist.

¶12

.,.PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, TSRTC, Rep by its Managing director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

2 The Dy. Chief Traffic l,4anager, TSRTC, Charminar Division, CBS Gowliguda, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Musheerabad Depot. Hyderabad, Hyderabad Dist.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or directions more in lhe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated P2l1(49)l2OO9- [/SRD, dt 17-'! 1-2009 passed by 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and Judgments of this Hon'ble Court and set aside the same with all consequential benefits including reinstatement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits including back wages as otherwise the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and hardship.

¶19

¶20

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 'ruPMP. NO: 38097 OF 2016)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that ir the cir:unrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Higlr Cou 1^.na/ be pleased to direct the 2nd res )ondent to consider and pass .^pprop riirte orders on the petitioner appeal da.ed, 2B-7-2O15 as per Law and Cirr;ulars ol th€r corporation.

¶23

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRI P. GOVINDA RAJULU

¶24

Counsel for the Res pondents: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS SC FOll T:iRTC

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

il ll

¶27

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶28

Writ Petition No.3O778 of 2O16

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the folloiving relief:-

¶31

"to issue urit, order or directions nutre in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the proceedings dated P2/ 1(49)/ 2O09-MSRD, dt 17.11.2009 passed by 3,,1 respondent in terminating the seru[ces oJ'the petitiotler utithout follouing the pinciples oJ natural ju.stice n.s illegal, arbitrary and utolcttion of pinciples oJ'natural justice and Judgments of this Honble Cotu t and set aside the same with all consequential benefits itcludirtq reinstatement ulith continuitg of seruice Luith ell consequential benejits including back tuages.^"

¶32

Heard Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Corporation.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as contract driver in the respondent Corporation on 21.07 .2008 and his services \ /ere terminated through the impugned proceedings dated 17.ll.2OO9. Respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings, issued charge memo on 25.07.2OOg on the alleged ground of unauthorised absence from 06.O5.20O9 to 2O.O7.2OO9,

¶34

i \

¶35

¶36

thougl-r tlre petitioner submitted leave application rccpresting the rcsp<>ndent Corporation to :lar)ction the leave on the ground that his u,ife admitt':d in t re hospital due to ht'r ill-health. Not granting the leave, the respondent Corporation conducted ex-parte ertquiry and basir-rg on trt: said enquiry report, termin.lted 1.h: sr:rvice ol the petitior er u,ithout giving reasonable opp,rrtur ity and also ',r'ithorrt furnishing enquiry report submitted by thc Enqr-riry Of i<:er. Questior-ring the said termirratiort ordcr, the petitioner- file d an appeal before the appellrt: a-rthorit-v on 19.08.r'010. Thereafter, the petitione: submitted anothcr representation to the appeil:Lte au -hority ot) 28.O7 .2015 Wl.ren the appellate authorit.v fa iled to consider tl.r,: irppeal, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶37

De,r contra, the learned S:andilgl (lounsel submits th et the respondent Corporatic,n aft-e:- following due proceclure AS contemplated under the regulation, issued chargo memo and also appointed Jlnqu.n, O[ficer to concluct 1[a 6:nquiry. The trnquiry Off-rcer afte;- r;onCuctir-rg detailed enr1uiry, submitted enquiry report on 2J.0).2OO9. The respon lent Corporation issued shou cause not.ice on

-7

2O.LO.2OO9 bv cnclosing a copy of the Enquiry report directing the petitioner to submit his explanation as to s'hy his services sl-rould not be terminated. The said notice rr'as returned unserved. He further submits that the said information was also affixed on the notice board. Inspitc of the same, the petitioner has not submitted anv explanation nor participated in the enquiry. The respondent Corporation has not received alleged appeal filed b-r, lhe petitioner dated 19.08.20 1O and after lapse of a long period, the petitioner filed appeal on 28.O7.2015 questioning the termination order dated 17. 1 1 .2OO9 and thc samc is not maintainable under lanv

¶42

By way of reply, the learned counsel lor the petitioner submits that due to the ill-health of tl-re petitioner's wife, he could not attend the duty arrd his rvife died and the petitioner rendered two years of servrce as a contract driver in the respondent Corporation and except this employment, there is no other livelihood to maintain him self and his children and requested this Court on hr:manitative Bloltnds to direct the respondent Corporation

¶43

¶44

to appoint tl re petitioner as contracl clri'.'er alir sh t'ithout an.v ot l-rer i crrefits.

¶45

6 . 'l:rking into consideration the lacl s and

¶46

circumstan::es of tl're casc and to mcet tl-e enrls of^justice, the petitioner is directed to submit a represen.atiorr to the respondent Oorporation ior seeking apl)oil-rtrncnt to the post of ct ntract driver u,ithollt any servict: lrt:nefits inclr-rding b rckrvages r,r,ithin a period of tv.'o (2) r,r'eeks lrom thc date of receipt of a copy of this orrler a:rc[ o;r such representat orr, thc respondent Corporation is cire:ted to reinstate tlrc petitioner into service as con -rir.ct driver afresh rvithir-r a period of tu,o(O2) months theree-fter r;ubject to medical cxamir-ration and also lurtht'r thr: petitioner shall be pla:ed under observation for a p,:riod o1'orL<: year from the date of appointment and during the riaid ;reriod, if the petitioner committed very sarre mistake the respondents are entitled to remove the petilioner from service with rr-rt issuing an_y notice. It is madt: r:le:Lr that this order st all not be a precedent to any r,ther ci,Lse

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. No

¶52

COStS.

¶53

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shali

¶54

stand closed.

¶55

¶56

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT-EIEGISTRAR ..D

¶57

//TRUE COPY/,

¶58

SECTION OFFICER

¶59

To, 1. The lvlanaging Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, TSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, TSRTC, Charminar Division, CBS Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 3. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, [t4usheerabad Depot. Hyderabad, Hyderabad Dist. 4. One CC to SRI P. GOVINDA RAJULU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies BN GJP

|'l

HIGH COU RT

DATED:111C912023

ORDER

WP.No.3077l| af 2016

:=:
1Er-A4
v
,4 t
dy
tl, l... L!a
F AY ,o
o
t
c.lH a

¶69

DISPOSING OI: THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSiTS

¶70

I^G${ry ffi"

K. Mallesham, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Mallesham, v. 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

K Satyanarayana and 3 Othrs Vs Prl.Secy., Social Welfare Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others

M.Satyanarayana Reddy, Karimnagar Dist. Vs Raghubir Narayan, Adilabad Dist.

R. Ramchandraiah Vs Sri Mahesh Dattu Akka

K. Janju Naik Vs The State of Telangana

V R M Reddy, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Md. Asad, E 209300, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation