Partly allowed

B. Anitha, v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC15 Sept 2023WP/8769/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking modification of departmental punishment. The court reduced the stoppage of annual increments to a period of two years without cumulative effect, relying on a prior order in W.P.No.15059 of 2008.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition partly allowed; punishment modified to stoppage of annual increments for two years without cumulative effect, prospective only.

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

¶1

I I I I I i i l I i

¶2

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶3

! I I i ! i i i i I I i I I

¶4

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

¶5

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAYOF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANO AND TWENWTHREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 8769 OF 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

B. Anitha, Wo. Bhanu Prakash Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Conductor(E.213}12), Telangana _State Road Transport Corporation, Midhini . Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶11

,..PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

'l . The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hydeiabad, Telangana State.

¶14

The Regional Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad Region, MGBS, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶15

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Midhani Bus Depot' Hyderabad' Telangana state'

¶16

...RES'.NDENT'

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 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 particulady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent herein in imposing the modified punishment of reduction of the petitioner pay by 2 incremental stages for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect and treating the period from date of removal to date of reporting is not on duty for all purposes is bad arbitrary illegal by setting a3ide the modified punishment portion only in Proc. No. Ptu586(230y2017-HR dt. 28-08-2017 of the 2nd respondent herein and direct the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner and treat the period from date of removal to date of reporting is on duty for all purposes.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner by suspending the modified punishment portion only in Proc.No. PA1SB6(23O)12017-HR dt.28-OB2017 of the 2nd respondent.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI THOOM SR|N|VAS, SC FOR TSRTC

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

I I

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.E769 of 2OlE

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present writ petition is frled seeking the following relief:

¶28

". . .to issue a u-trtt or order or direction more partianlarlg one in th.e nature of Wrtt of Mandamus declaring that the action of tLE 2"d respondent herein in imposing th-e modified punishment of reduction of the petitioner paA bA 2 incremental stages for a periad of 2 gears uith cumulatiue effect and treating tle period from date of remaual to date of reporting is not on dutg for all purposes is bad, arbitrary, illegal bg setting asid.e tlte in modified punishment portion onlg Proc.No.PA/ 586(23O)/ 2017-HR, dt.28-08-2o17 of the 2"d respondent herein and direct the respondents to restore the pag of tle petitioner and treat the period from date of remoual to date of reporting is on duty for all putposes and pass ..."

¶29

\ \

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15059 of 2OO8 dated 30.12.2022. The operative portion of which reads as under:

¶31

"Taking into consideration th.e facts o.nd circum.stances of the case and also the length of seruices rendered by the petitioner, this Court

¶32

ilF

¶33

2 deems it fit and proper to modify the quantum of punishment of stoppag,e of annual grad.e irucrement without cumulatiu,z effect for a period. of two gears. Howeuer, it is mad.e clear that this madification of punishment shall haue prospectiue effect onlg from the date of .passing of this order and th.e petitioner shall not be entitled. to claim th.e monetary benefits for the pe.riod prtor to passing of this order."

¶34

The said submission rs not disputed by Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned staldinl3 counsel appearing for

¶35

respondent-TSRTC.

¶36

4 . In rriew of the submission ntade by both the counsel, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order dated 30. 12.2022 passed by this Court in W.p.No.l5O59 of 200g. No order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶38

petition, shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ASS]STANT REGISTRAR Ca8SECTION OFFICER

¶40

//rRUE coPYT/

¶41

To, 1. The Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Telangana State-

¶42

The Regional Manager, Telangana State [?oad Transport Corporation, Hyderabad Region, MGBS, Hyderabad, Trllangana State.

¶43

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Midhani Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶44

One CC to SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶45

One CC to SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FrfR TSRTC. [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies.

¶47

BSK^ SB rt\n---

¶48

(Along with a copy of order , daled 30-12-2022 in W.P.No.1 5O59 of 2008 to this order)

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510912023

ORDER

i'r',i 6i4 Ig
.i..3
: :1. :" ',
=.,)
17 0[I2m

¶53

WP.No.8769 of 2018

¶54

PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

r""2

¶56

¶57

HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICT) J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶58

W.P.No.15059 OrF 2OO8

¶59

ORDER:

¶60

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rro, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents' Corporation.

¶61

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandarnus to declare the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of reducing the petitioner's basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, and treating the suspension period as hol on duty,, as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate and consrrquently to set aside the Office order No. 02/95127)/99-DVK, dated tt.O2.2OOO passed by I., respondent.

¶62

Brref facts of the case are that the petitioner was appornted as a 'Conductor" in the respondents' Corporation. On O 1.08. 1999 while he was performing his duties en route Devarakonda to pogilla, a check was conducted at Stage No.16 (PogilJa). During the check, the inspection staff of the Corporation noticed cash and ticket irregularities. Subsequently, a charge memo dated O 1 O8.1999 was issued to the petitioner for the afores;aid lapses. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted his explanetion but the respondents, Corporation has not issued any reply. Srrbsequently, the respondents,

¶63

¶64

Corporation had issued charge sheet dated 24.09.1999 along with suspension order stating that the petitioner failed to collect ticket fare from passengers. The petitioner submitted explanation on 29.O9.1999 to the above said charge sheet. [.a.ter, the respondents' Corporation conducted an enquiry and passed final order No.O2l95l27l/99-DVK, dated, L7.O2.2OOO by the l"t respondent imposing punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and the period of suspension is treated as 'not on duty'. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2"d respondent or O4.O7.2OO7. Later the 2nd respondent rejected his appeal on 24.O8.2OO7 as time barred, after lapse of seven years. Again the petitioner filed a Review Petition on OI.O9.2OO7 before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda and the same was rejected.

¶65

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Enquiry Officer without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charg,e sheet, submitted the enquiry report. He further contended that at the time of checking, two passengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets and not paid the bus fare. Hence, the ticket fare was collected from the passengers by the TTI and also imposed a fine of Rs.SO/-. He further contended that other two passengers also have given statements that they have boarded the top of the bus while the bus was in slow motion when tlre sheep cattle was crossing before the bus without the

I I it

I i 1 i

knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and they^have not paid ticket fare and collected the l:ickets from the^{petitioner.The} above said statements of the passenl3ers itself would establish that there was no intention of misappropriation of any amounts and the petitioner has not caused any loss tc, the respondents'Corporation. The 1"t respondent without considerinl; the above said aspects^passed the impugned order imposing pur shment withholding of two increments with cumulative eIlect, rvhich is a major^punishment though the petitioner has not commitl.ed any misappropriation while discharging his lawful duties as a Conctuctor.

¶70

The learned counsel for the ::espondents submits that the respondents' Corporation after following the due^procedure conternplated under the Regulations and after conducting enquiry by dr-rly appointing an Enquiry Oflicer rrnd that apart considered the explarlatiorl o[ the petitioner as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, inrpugned order was passed on IL.O2.2OOO; and as such, there is no itlegality in the impugrred order passed by l"r respondent.

¶71

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, apparently, the petitioner h,ed submitted his explanation to the charge sheet for the charges levelled against him. The^petitioner has emphatically contended that at the time of checking, two passengers lrave given statements that they have not taken tickets and not paid the bus fare and other tvo passengers have also^given

¶72

¶73

statements that they have boarded the top of the bus while the^bus was in slow motion when the sheep cattle was crossing before^{the bus} without the knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and further stated that they have not^paid ticket fare and^collectedthe tickets from the petitioners. The learned counsel^for the^petitioner rightly contended that the respondents' Corporation^wlthout considering t}re statements given by the^{passengers and without} properly considering the explanation submitted by the^petitioner to the charge sheet, passed the impugned order against^{the doctrine of} proportionality basing on the report sirbmitted by the Enquiry Officer imposed punishment of withholding annual^{grade incrementsfor a} period of two years with cumulative effect. The respondents' Corporation has failed to establish that the act^{of thc petitionerwas} intentional in not issuing the ttckets to the^{passengersand he played} a fraud to cause colossa-l financial loss to the^respondents' Corporation exchequer but it amounts to only^{negligenceon the part} of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the^{respondents'Corporation} ought not to have imposed^{punishment;namely, stoppage of} increments for a period of two^{years withcumulativeeffect, which,in} the considered opinion of this Court is^a major^punishment-

¶74

Taking into consideration of the facts and^{circumstancesof the} case and also the length of service rendered^{by the petitioner, this} Court deems it frt arld proper to modify the^{quantumof punishmentof}

¶75

¶76

stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. However, it is mad<: clear that this modification of punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner sha-Il not be entitled to claim the monetary benefirts for the period prior to passing of this order.

¶77

Subject to the above modification, the writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶78

Miscellaneous petitions, if aly, 1:ending in this writ petition, shall stand closed

¶79

JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶80

Dated: 30.12.2022 skj

B. Anitha, v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Anitha, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Agam Reddy Vs J. Muralidhar Reddy and Another

Smt.Shaheda Begum and 4 Ors. Vs M/S.Psc Bose Automobilees and Anr.

M/S. Sriram General Insurance Company Vs D.Agam Reddy and Another

D.Venkati Vs Bommakanti Divakar and Anr.

Apsrtc., Musheerabad, Hyd.,. Vs Smt. Vanampally Krishnaveni , Jayanthi and 4 Others

T. Anitha Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation