Disposed

R.V. Rao, E-290395, Tsrtc Conductor, v. The T.S.R.T.C.

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024WP/18523/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition by a TSRTC conductor challenging the imposition of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect for ticketing irregularities. The High Court mitigated the punishment by substituting it with stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect, considering the employee's unblemished service record.

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned order substituting deferment of increments with cumulative effect to stoppage of increments without cumulative effect for two years.

R.V. Rao, E-290395, Tsrtc Conductor, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18523 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

R.V. Rao, E-290395, TSRTC Conductor, S/o. Haimsingh, aged 45 yrs, Sanga Reddy Depot, R/o. Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The T.S.R.T.C., rep by its Managing Director, lt/lusheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Regional Manager, T.S.R.T,C., Medak, Region, at Sangareddy, Medak Dist.

¶13

The Depot Manager, T.S.R.T,C., Narayankhed, Medak District.

¶14

The Depot Manager. T.S.R.T.C., Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in imposing the punishment of deferment of 2 annual increments for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect vide Proc. No- 02195(05)/2012-DM-NKD, Dt 06-09-20'12, which was confirmed by the appellate and review authorities vide Proc. No.PA/20(1 11)12013-DY.CTM/MR, dt.0B-01-20'14 and Proc No.PA/675(12)/20'14 -RMlMR, dt.21-12-2015 as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, contrary to the circular instructions, capricious, unconstitutional, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of^justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by adding the deferred increments and to^pay the difference of arrears of wages forthwith.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. M. SUBHAN

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. SRINIVAS REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.18523 of 2O16

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶23

"to issue an order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of u.tit of mandamus declaring tlrc action of the 3,a respondent in imposing the punishment of defertnent of 2 annual increments for a peiod of 2 gears uith cumulatiue effect uide Proc.No. 02/95(05)/2012DM-NKD, Dt.O6.09.2012, ttltich tuos confinned bg the appellate and reuieu-t authoities uide Proc.No. PA/ 20(111)/ 2013-DY.CTM/ MR, dt.OB.O1.2O14 and Proc.No.PA/ 675(12)/ 2014-RM/ MR, dt. 21.12.2015 as high handed and arbitrary oction, contrary to APSRTC Regulatiorts, contrary to the circular instn-tctions, capicious, unconstitutional and as such liable to be set a.side in the interest of^justice utith a con sequential direction to tLrc respondents to re-frx the pay of the petitioner bg adding the defened increments and to pag the difference of arrears of utages forthuith and pass such other order or orders a,s this Honble Court maA deem fit and proper in the ciranm.stances of the case" -

¶24

Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.Srinivas Reddy, learned Starding Counsel for respondents-Corporation. Perused the record.

¶25

Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation in 1997. Alleging certain cash and ticket irregularities, a charge sheet was issued and he was suspended from duty. After conducting inquiry, the 3'd respondent, taking a lenient view, directed reinstatement of petitioner into service, revoking the suspension order. Vide

¶26

¶27

NBK,J WP. No.18523 of 2o16

¶28

Proc.No.O2l95(05)/2012-DM-NKD, dated^06.O9.2O12, however, imposed punishment of deferment of two annual increments for a period of two years^.with cumulative^effect. Thereafter, appeal and review petitions filed by him^were rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

¶29

Case of the petitioner is t-hat while he^{was performing} duty on Ol.06.2012 with vehicle No.AP 1OZ-754O^on route from Nagalgidda-NKD, a check was exercised at stage^No.4 to 1 . Thereafter, a charge memo was issued^alleging that he had recycled ticket Nos.671/790261 and 262 of^Rs. 14/to a batch of two passengers who boarded the bus at Nagalagidda and bound to NKD ex-stages 4 to 1, duly collecting cash, which were already issued at stage^No.4 and the STAR upto ticket No.263. He was issued two tickets punched 0-4 stage and issued the same tickets at stage No.4 to 1. Re-issue of tickets worth of Rs.14/- i.e., 7+7, was denied by the petitioner. He further submits that TTIs without proper verification of fare stages, in the charge memo furnished the name of boarding and alighting of passengers as Jamgi to Narayanakhed instead of Nagalgidda to Narayanakhed which is the actual piace of

¶30

¶31

NB(,J WP. No.14523 ot2016

¶32

{ a

¶33

¶34

boarding of passengers, ex-stage No.4/3 to^{1. The said} tickets were erroneously^{wrongpunched as 0 to 4 instead} of4 to 1, which is endorsed^{on the reverseof the said ticket} as wrong punch. He further submits^{that as per the} version of the TTIs, in case the alleged^{passengersboarded} the bus at Jamgi bound to Narayanakhed,^{they should} have to pay the fare of^{Rs. 15+15=30,but in the spot} statement, passengers clearly^{mentionedthat they paid} Rs.14/-. However, TTI had not^{collected the balancefare of} Rs.16/- from the alleged^{passengers. It is contended that} he has issued tickets to all the^{passengers correctly and} the said tickets were erroneously^{wrong punched as 0 to 4} instead of 4 to 1 is a clerical error and though^{there is no} fault on his part, the impugned order^{is passed imposing} major penalty, which is liable^{to be set aside.}

¶35

¶36

On the other hand, it is the case^{of respondent-} Corporation that the impugned order of^punishmentis passed after conducting inquiry and by considering^the entire record, hence, there is no ground to^{interfere with} the same and accordingly^prayed for dismissal^{of the writ} petition.

¶37

¶38

NBKJ WP. No.18523 of2016

¶39

Taking into consideration the totality of^the circumstances, the defence taken by the petitioner,^the unblemished previous service of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the^punishment of reduction of two annual grade increments for a period of two^years with cumulative effect can be modified to that of without cumulative effect.

¶40

Accordingly, the impugned order daled 06.09.2012 imposing the punishment of deferment of two annual^grade increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect is modified to that of stoppage of two annual^grade increments without cumulative effect

¶41

With the above directions, the writ petition 1S

¶42

disposed of. There sha-ll be no order as to costs.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sh stand crosed

¶44

//rRuE coPY/' ^t'3[l^t'1T'Jg*'3t?t^'J .ecrrN{rrrcen /

¶45

'"'l+ffi Hsi,x'"lP*'iii""Jsi,;%','J;k?i"Y:a5?Jff ::f^{s1x33l3!3i'"0"} Dist. J 4 5 A uttttgF!g'"i"+.H,",tt{H'',-y*,tr'ffi:T7 Two CD^CoPies TJ LS

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912024

ORDER

1HE S 14
(
/t
-J
o (- ,1
,J
I 3 0 0t[ 202{ 21
,)
1..k,

¶53

WP.No.18523 of 2016

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶55

WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

r?,p
q Lc'
L{

R.V. Rao, E-290395, Tsrtc Conductor, v. The T.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.V. Rao, E-290395, Tsrtc Conductor, v. The T.S.R.T.C.

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

Smt. Indira Bhati Vs Sri. Yatendra Pal Singh

Karnala Madhu Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

V.Krishna Kumari, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Scr Emp Coop Credit Society Ltd., Secunderabad Vs Second Appellate Authority, Hyd and 2 Others

The South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Vs The Second Appellate Authority under Section

Sahu Laxmi Narsamma Vs Bashetti Laxmi Narsamma