Partly allowed

B. Venkaiah v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC3 Aug 2023WP/47339/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court modified the punishment of withholding annual increment for two years with cumulative effect and treated the period of removal to reinstatement as not on duty, making the modification prospective only from the order date.

What did the court decide?

Moderation of punishment to stoppage of annual grade increment for two years without cumulative effect; prospective from order date.

B. Venkaiah Vs The Telangana State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 47339 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Venkaiah, S/o. Elamanchaiah, Aged about 42 years, Conducto(E..17684g). Telanga.na_ State Road Transport Corporation j Devarakonda dns Oepoi, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Represented bv its Manaqing. Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana Siate

¶12

The Regional Manager, Telangana State Ro-ad Transport iorporation, Nalgonda Reglgn, at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

¶13

The Depot IVlanager, Telangana State Road Trinsport Corporation, Devarakonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda District, Telangana Statb

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent herein in modifying the punishment of withholding of petitioners annual increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect besides treating the period from the date of removal to date of reporling duty as not on duty for all purposes is bad, arbitrary and illegal by setting aside the modified punishment portion only in proc. No. Ptu19(176y2016-RM.NLG dt. 19-10-2016 of 2nd respondent herein and consequentially direct the respondents lo restore the withheld 2 increments of the petitioner by treating period from date of removal to date of reporting duty as on duty for all purposes

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. GADDAM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

It R N,J '/P N o.473 3 9 of 2018

¶18

THE HON'BI ] SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJT)SHWAR RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.47339 of 2018

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

I e ud Sri P. Venkateshu'ar [lao, l,:i: rn:d corrnsel 1or the ltr ir.ioner arrd Sri Caddam Sri-r va:;. learrred Sltandirrg^ral' Llll:;el lor Lhc rt'spondelts'(loi-ll()r rtt,)n

¶22

2 I ris writ petition is filed Lurdcr Lr-tir:ie 2,26 of the Con strti tion o1' India seeking the fol Lorvir.g rc iel:

¶23

".. .to sriue a Wil or order or tlir<,r,t t> i. tliore parlicu tr.ly, on.e tn the rtature of Wri of l[c-,nda_rnus declctri, g thal. tlte ar;tictn of the 2,"t res,oc,,tle'nt in modr.lL,1; tc the punishntenl of tuithtrcttl,;r q o,,. th_e pet.itbn 'r's e.tuluoL in.crentent lor a pe r,'ct1 t).1 t. LL)o Aetlr:; nlh ctLmulatiue effect besides tren,irttr the: peiocl iont the date: o,f remoual L t !.lt<' c1a,e o_f reP\o rlir. t 7u.tg cts not on dutA', as bacl, arb,b.trq and ilLeqar lj^{:;el Litlq asid.rt} the mod.tfte ri 7;t ri _sl1rnsn1 porli,sn tnltt in Proce:cclincJs No. pA/ I 9(i',,()1,/ :01 6 RM.N1.( aateri 19,lO.2Ol6 o-f tl-te )rtct 7,1sy1s.t7 .1.,' r,,nt ancl con setlt zr,.tl.,t, t.Iire'ct tlr: r<,:spondents fo ,€ srort- Lhe 11.)ithh,?1, t,Lt) ittr-ft nt, r,t., ,:l' tle p(,iilitti Lt t).t^.tt,,tlinu perrot! J o'n tlk) drtte oJ- rennurtl to dzt.e o-f r...;torling chig ct: dutlr' artd pa:;s sur:h other r,rti<,r or ,.otL c'trd e:rs. .

¶24

¶25

RRN,J WP No.47339 of 2018

¶26

3 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a contract conductor in the year 2OO9 and his serwices r.zere regularized on L2.O7.2012. Since the date of regularization, the petitioner was performing his duty with utmost satisfaction to his superiors, and on 23.12.2015 while he was performing his duties en route from Devarakonda to Pogilla, a check was conducted at Stage No. I 1 (Chapala Gatel. Subsequently, he was issued with a charge memo alleging that he had not issued tickets to two passengers in spite of collecting Rs.5/- x 2 = Rs. 10/- from them. They were travelling stage frorn No. 10 to 1 1 and at the time of alighting they were not having tickets.

¶27

3(1) Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the same manner, another passenger was also not having Rs.5/- denomination ticket who boarded the bus stage I'{o.10 alighting at stage No.11. For the above said lapses, the petitioner submitted explanation to the charge memo, but without considering the same, the respondents' Corporation had issued chargesheet dated O2.01.20i6 qlong with suspension order, for that

¶28

¶29

R R N,.J rVP l,/o.47 33 9 of 2018

¶30

a1so. the p :ritioner had submitted a cleta.ile,.l explanation. Later, the rr:spondents' Corporation ,lorld _lcte,l a lormal enquirv" ar cl finall1. the petitioner rvsS r:moved from service vid< p,roceedings dated 20.OT.2OL6

¶31

3(:2) l,earned Counsei for the pet it on cr lurther submittecl I reLt against the removal th,:reafter, the petitioner p 't:ferred an appeal before the Dy ( TNI/NLG but it^.,r,,as rejer .r:d on 24.08.2016. Aggriev:d tr.r i11,, same, he liled a revie v petition before the 2nd responc c -r t. Later the 2,d respor clerrt re,instated him into ,;c:rrice vide p rocecd in gs r.lt. 19.10.2016 by modilying rhc punishment of rernovzri I o rn servir:e to that of withhc,ldinlg ol' Iris annual incremenl- [, r a period o[ two years wit 1 (]r,ljn ulr tive effect and treatinl .he period lrom the date ol' r:,rno.rerl to the daiie of reltc 1 ng dutv as hot on duty, lor tlr,: ptrrpose of u,ages, inc rc n.erLts, senioritv and settlerrLenl.s. 4 W r< n the rnatter came up for hr:,tr.ir-r11. learned counsel for trre petil.ioner submitted rh.rr r r a similar srtuation ir-i rrrother casc i e. W.p.No.1lio.-{l r,l ll00E tiris Court pi:rtly ulorvt:d the silntc b-y observing a:; lollows

¶32

¶33

RRN,J WP No.47339 of 2018

¶34

"Taking into consideration of the facts arul circutnstances of the case and also the length of service rendered bg the petitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to mod.ifu the quantum of punishment of stoppage of annual grad.e increment without cumulatiue effect for a peiod of two Aears. Howeuer, it is mad.e clear that this modifi.cation of punishment shall haue prospectiue effect onlg from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the pericd prior to passing of this order.',

¶35

and prayed that a similar order may be passed.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that similar order may be passed subject to the condition that the contents of the condition No.(c) in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent should not be modihed.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in condition No.(c) in the proceedings of the 2"d respondent except increments, remaining things may be retained as it is.

¶38

R R N,,] <sup>/ P No 47339 of 2018

¶39

7 A :his juncture, it is approltriatr: trl reproduce

¶40

the condir,ir 3s mcnltoned in the procee<lirLg;s rtf the 2"d respondent t l9.1O.ilol6, which reads as Lutt.ler

¶41

a) Re;.n :l'tt,zd into seruice and posted tct (rLclc,.girigutta Dep I

¶42

b)Asa lleesure of punishment, his anrtt,c,l i,crement LUlle,t .l-wo r, ext fctlls; due shall be withltolcl ,b. a period of [,?ARS uthich shctll haue its ef|'e,i: r,n ,ii, 1rtu,.

¶43

lncrt n.eris.

¶44

c) "The n'ertiewing peiod i.e. from ,ht, date of lis re tn( 'trtL.frorn :;eruice to tilt he reporls Jo,. Cittg ort "ein: '(.te'ment is treated as *NOT ON-Dl,Tt.,,"for

¶45

the p r.cctse oJ'wages, incremenfs_ sell o;itg ind. settle n.zr;.ts. "

¶46

FIa ,rn51 regard to the rival corrtentions and the material plac r<.1 on rec.ord, apparently, thc ;ol: itioner r.r.as 'not on dut.r'' 1rr ring th e period i.e . remoual "rrom..^ser-uice to till he re7 trts for dutg on reinstatemen.!, }-rcnce. the petitioner is r rt entitle<l to increments during, tttat perrod. 9. [n -l.re facts and circumstanccs, rhir; Court deems it fit rLnd pr()per to modify thc rlr.tzrr tum of punishment f to that of stoppage cf zrr rLual grade increment wit rout cumulative effect lol. a or..iorl ol two -/ears.^Hou,t:r.. t, it is rrradc clear that this rnoclrllcatior-i of

¶47

RRN,J WP No.47339 of 2018

¶48

¶49

punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order. It is also made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for increments during retnoaal oft from^{seruice to till hereports} for^dutg

¶50

reinstatement.

¶51

10 Subject to the above modification, the writ petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs.

¶52

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶53

That Rule Nisi has^{been made absolute as above'} Witness the Hon'ble^{the Chief JusticeALoKARADHE , ThisThursday} 'The Third Day Of August^{Two Thousand And Twenty Three}

¶54

SD/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I (fr

¶55

SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

1 TheManaoinoDirector,TelanganaStateRoadTranspo(Corporation'Bus Bhavan, Mlsheerabad,^{Hyderabad, Telangana State}

¶58

2 ii" Ceoionar Manaqer,^{T6langana State RoadTransportCorp-oration'} N;1".;itC;oion. ai Nihono5,^{Nalgonda District, Telangana State'}

¶59

3 in"."o.r.i nrl5"i,i"r. T"l5nqrn"^{State RoadTransport c-orporation'} o"r*r[""oJaui^{o'epot, N?lgonda District, TelanganaState}

¶60

1. o"!-cCt" Snr.^{p. vEruxerEswnnRAo, Advqc-alql^qP.u^ql.^.} 5. 6;; cc io sni. ceoonM^{sRlNlvAS(sc FoR rsRTC)[oPUC]}

¶61

Two CD CoPies BM GJP

¶62

HIGH COURT

¶63

DATED:03108 2023

¶64

(i$,
\s
i,i.a
c>)
//'
I'
\ll

¶65

ORDER

¶66

WP.No.47339 of 2018

¶67

PARTLY AL.L fWING THE WRIT PE'IIT!'f,N WITHOUT C( STS

¶68

-7i<---
Sl
\5i1' ltr),3

B. Venkaiah v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Venkaiah 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Chandrasekhar Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

Shaik Mohammed Ali , Mohd. Mahmadali and 2 Others Vs the Depot Manager and Another

A. Krishna Veni Vs The State of Telangna

P. Padmalatha, Vs The State of Telangana

K. Bhavani Vs M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Shaik Bahseer Vs The State of Telangana