Partly allowed

T. Anitha v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC15 Sept 2023WP/8780/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a follow-up order to W.P. No. 15059 of 2008, this Court partly allowed the petition. It declared that a one-year postponement portion of the punishment was bad, arbitrary, and illegal, and directed the respondents to restore the withheld increment and pay arrears, relying on the earlier order that modified the quantum of punishment.

What did the court decide?

Set aside one-year postponement portion of punishment; direct restoration of withheld annual increment; order payment of arrears.

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

¶1

I !

¶2

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶3

E !, II lI c I! t 1 ! i

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE NAMAVARAPURA'ESHWAR RAO}

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 8780 OF 2018

¶10

Between:

¶11

T. Anitha, D/o. Laxma Reddy, Aged about 42^years, Conductor^(E.213253). Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Midhani Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The Telangana State Road Transport^Corporation, $eplesgnle!^{by its} -. Managing birector, Bus Bhavan,^{Musheerabad, Hyderabad,Telangana State.}

¶15

2 The Regional Manager, Telangana StateRoad^{Tran_sport.Corporation,} Hydera6ad Region, ivlGBS, Hyderabad,^{TelanganaState.}

¶16

'l The Divisional Manager, Telangana State^{RoadTransport. Corporation,} Hayatnagar Division, at Hayatnagar,Hyderabad,^{TelanganaState.}

¶17

4 The Depot Manager, Telangana State^{Road Transport Corporation' Midhani} Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High Courtmay 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 3rd respondentherein in} imposing the modified^punishment of^{postponementof petitionersannual} increment for a^period of 1^{year with cumulative effect is bad,arbitrary and illegal} by setting aside the balance 1^{year punishment portiononly in Proc. No. ST/19} (1111 t 2017-DV[I(HYT) dt. 14-07-2017 of 3rd respondent^hereinand consequential rejection Proc. dt. 14-O9-2O17 of^{2nd respondenthereinand} consequently direct the respondents to restore the^{withheld increment of the} petitioner by paying the difference of arrears.

¶20

i I

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶22

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 balance withheld increment of the petitioner in concerned with the Proc.No STilg(111)12O17-DVM(HYT) dt.14-07-2017 of 3rd respondent herein.

¶23

Counse! for the Petitioner : SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

I ; I

¶25

I \ I

¶26

i \ I I l'

¶27

¶28

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶30

WRTT PETITIoN No.8780 of 2O18

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The present writ petition is filed seeking^the following relief:

¶33

n. . .to issue a utit or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Wrtt of Manl.amus declaring that th.e action of tle 3rd^{responlenth.erein in} tmposing tle modified punishment of^{postponementof} petitioner's annual increment for a period of 1^gear with cumulatiue effect is bad arbitrary and^{illegalbg setting} aside the balance 1 gear^{punishmentportiononlg in Proc} No.ST/19 (111)/2)17DVM(HYT), dt^{14-09-2017of 3rd} respondent herein and consequential^rejection Proc.dt.14.O9.2O17 of 2ftd respondent^lereinand consequentlg direct the respondents^torestoretLe uLithhetd increment of ttre petitioner bg^{paging the} dffirence of arrears and^{pass.. ."}

¶34

When the matter is taken up^forhearing,

¶35

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} 2O08 dated 30.12.2022. The^{operative portion of whichreads} as under:

¶36

.Taking into consideration tLE facts and circumstances of the case and^{also the length of} seruices rendered by the^{petittoner, thi's Court} deems it fit and proper to modrfg the^quantumof

¶37

<br>

¶38

2 punishment of stoppage of annual grad.e increment uitltout cumulatiue effect for a peioa oy two gears. Howeuer, it is made clear ih.at thi"s modification of puni-shment shall haue prospectiue effect only from the d.ate of passing of this order and th.e petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order."

¶39

¶40

The said submission is not disputed by Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent_ TSRTC.

¶41

In view of the submission made by both the counsel, without going into the merits of the case, the wr-it petition is partly allowed in terms of the order dated 30.I2.2O22 passed by this Court in W.p.No. l5OS9 of 2OOg. No order as to costs.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE, on this Friday, The Fifteenth Day Of September, Two Thousand And Twenty Three

¶45

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANI*REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I q SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

The Divisional Nlanager, Telangana State Road Transport. Corporation, Hayatnagar Division, at Hayatnagar,Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶50

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Midhani Bus Deoot. Hvderabad. Telanqana State.

,'rl'

one cc to^{sRl P.VENKATESWAR} Qo.4{v999tC'-tqBu9l^6. il; cc i;^{SRitrob'H,rsntrutvAs,sc FoR rsRrc'toPucl} 7. Two CD^CoPies. BSKttA--(along with a order copy^{daled30.12'2022 in W'P'No'15059of 2008)}

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510912023

ORDER

WP.No.8780 of 2019

f i ,. i '^..
o.J (1
t)
17 0C1 204 ,, i!
ii
,4..,,
.:- '
!i

¶61

PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

¶62

\ ^h-
-,2-
l(^r \O\z-l

¶63

¶64

HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶65

W.P.l{o.15O59 OF 2OOB

¶66

ORDER:

¶67

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

¶68

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus 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 'not on duty', as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate and consequently to set aside the Offrce order No. 02/95(271/99 DVK, datcd | |.O2.2OOO passed by lst resPondent.

¶69

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a 'Conductor" in the respondents'Corporation. On O1.O8.1999 while he was performing his duties en route Devarakonda to Pogilla, a check was conducted at Stage No.l6 (Pogilla). 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 aforesaid lapses. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted his explanation but the respondents' Corporation has not issued any reply. Subsequently, the respondents'

¶70

¶71

Corporation had issued charge sheet dated 24.09.1.999 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. Later, the respondents' Corporation conducted an enquiry and passed final order No.O2,/95(271/99-DVK, dated 1 .O2.2OOO by the 1$ respondent imposing punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect arrd the period of suspension is treated as 'not on duty'. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal beforc the 2nd respondent on O4.O7.2OO7. Later the 2nd respondcnt rejected his appeal on 24.Oa.2OO7 as time barred, after lapse of seven years. Again the petitioner filed a Review Petition on O1.O9.2O07 before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda and the same !'as rejected.

¶72

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehernently contended that the Enquiry Oflicer without considering 'he explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, submitted the enquiry report. He further contended that at the time ol 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 the sheep cattle was crossing before the bus without the

¶73

¶74

knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and they have not paid ticket fare and collected the tickets from the petitioner. The above said statements of the passengers itself would establish that there was no intention of misappropriation of any amounts and the petitioner has not caused arly loss to the respondents' Corporation. The 1"t respondent without considering the above said aspects passed the impugned order imposing punishment withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a major^punishment though the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation while discharging his lawful duties as a Conductor.

¶75

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents' Corporation after following the due procedure contemplated under the Regulatrons and after conducting enquiry by duly appointing an Enquiry Officer and that apart considered the explanation of the petitioner as well as the hndings of the Enquiry OIIicer, impugned order was passed on 11.02.2OO0; and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order^passed by^1"t respondent.

¶76

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material^placed on record, apparenfly, the petitioner had 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 have given statements that they have not taken tickets and not paid the bus fare and other tlvo passenfaers have also^given

¶77

¶78

statements that they have tloarded the top of the brrs 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 tJrey have not paid ticket fare and collected the tickets from the petitioners. The learned counsel Ior the petitioner rightly contended that the respondents' Corporation without considering the 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 submitted by tht: Enquiry Officer imposed punishment of withholding annual grade increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The respondents' Corporation has failed to establish that the act o[ ttrc petitioner was intcntional in not issuing the tickets to the passenger-s and he played a fraud to cause colossa-l financial loss to the respondents' Corporation exchequer but it amounts to only negligence on the part of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents' Corporation ought not to have imposed punishment; nameiy, stoppage of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect, which, in the considered opinion of this Court is a major punishment.

¶79

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the length of service rendered by the petitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the quantunt ol punishment of

¶80

¶81

i I

¶82

stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of 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.

¶83

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

¶84

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

¶85

JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶86

Dated: 30.12.2022 skj

T. Anitha v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. 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

B. Anitha, Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation