Disposed

D.Prabhakar Rao v. Apsrtc,Director,Hyd,and 3

Telangana HC19 Sept 2024WP/22178/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation to consider the petitioner's reply dated 27.04.2015 and grant an opportunity to participate in an enquiry with personal hearing and adduce evidence within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 4 to consider the reply and grant petitioner an opportunity to participate in inquiry and adduce evidence within four weeks.

D.Prabhakar Rao Vs Apsrtc,Director,Hyd,and 3 — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t32s2l

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22178 OF 2015

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

D. Prabhakar Rao, S/o D.Surya Rao Aged about 66^years, Occ Chief^Advisor Security Staff Welfare Association Telangana State Road^Transport Corporation Karimangar Zone, Karimnagar District.'

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,^{Repby its Director,} (Vigilance Security) Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,^{Rep by its Joint Managing} Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Joint Director^(Vigilance and Security), Telangana State Road^Transport Corporation Hyderabad.

¶14

The Vigilance and Security Officer, Telangana State^{RoadTransport} Corporation Karimnagar Zone, Karimnagar District.

¶15

B. Thirupathi, S/o. Not known to the^petitioner, Occ.^{Security Head Constable,} Vigilance and Security Office, Bus Stand Complex, Karimnagar^Town, Karimnagar District.

¶16

Respondent No. 5 is impleaded as^per C.O.dt. 08.O7.2024 in^{lA No. 212015 in} (WP MP No. 29644 ot 2015)

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue a proper writ order or orders,^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents^{in not} considering^the reply dated 27-04-2015 to the^proceedings dated^{2O-O4-2015and not allowing the} petitioner to participate in the enquiry is arbitrary and illegal and consequently issue a direction to the respondents to consider the^{replydated27-04-2015 by} giving opportunity to adduce evidence

¶19

I.A. N O:1OF20 15(WPMP. NO: 28600 OF 2015)

¶20

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 issue a direction to the respondents to consider the reply aated zi-oq-io15 to the proceedings dated 20'04-2015 by giving opportunity to participate in the enquiry by adducing the evidence pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD ASIFUDDIN

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent No.l to 4: SRI A. RAVI BABU (SC FORTSRTC)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: - - - -

¶24

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

¶27

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.22178 OF 2015

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard Sri Mohd. Asifuddin, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A.Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶31

The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶32

" ... to issue a proper writ order or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the reply dated 27.04.2015 to the proceedings dated 20.04.2015 and not allowing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry is arbitrary and illegal and consequently issue a direction to the respondents to consider the reply dated 27.04.2015 by giving opportunity to adduce evidence such other order or orders"

¶33

The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is one of the members of Security Staff Welfare Association and he submitted representations dated 02.02.20t5, 26.01.2015 and 23.L2.2OI4 to the respondents alleging various irregularities committed by one B.Thirupathi, Head Constable. After receiving the said representations, respondent authorities issued proceedings dated 20.04.2015 to the petitioner stating that enquiry was conducted and it was found that the allegation in

¶34

<br>

¶35

¶36

the said representations were not proved. In response to the said notice, petitioner submitted reply dated 27.04.2015 requesting to give opportunity for participating in the enquiry to prove the charges leveled against one B.Tirupathi, however, respondents did not consider the same. It is further the case of the petitioner that in spite of petitioner,s detailed reply dated 27.04.2075 in response to the notice dated 20.O4.2OlS, respondent Nos.2 to 4 failed to consider the same. The petitioner had submitted his detailed reply dated 27.04.2015 to the said proceedings dated 20.04.2015 to the respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein and requested them to give liberty to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to adduce the evidence pertaining to the subject issue, however, as on date, the reply of the petitioner dated 27.04.2075, to the proceedings dated 20.04.2015 had not been considered. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondent No.4 to consider the reply dated 27.04.2024 submitted by the petitioner to the proceedings dated 20.04.2015 within a reasonable period in accordance to law.

¶38

l-.

¶39

¶40

Taking into consideration^{the submissions made by} the^.learned counsel^{appearing onbehalf ofthe} respondents, the writ^{petition is disposed of directing the} respondent No'4 to^{consider the reply dated 27'O4'2OL5} submitted by the^{petitioner to the proceedingsdated} 2O.O4.2OL5 by^{givingan opportunityof personal hearing} to the^{petitionerby enabling the petitionerto participate} in the enquiry in^{accordanceto Iaw in conformity with} principles of natural^justice, duly^{permitting the petitioner} to adduce the^{documentary evidencein support of the} petitioner's case within a^{period of four(4) weeks from} the date of^{receipt of a copy of this order and duly} communicate the^{decision to thepetitionerherein'} However, there shall^{be no order as to costs'}

¶41

Miscellaneous^{petitlons,ifany, pending in this Writ}

¶42

Petition, shall^standclosed '

¶43

SD/. P. GOWRI SHANKAR o"?,ltt*, REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// r,v--SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

1 The Director, The^{Andhra Pradesh StateRoadTransportCorporation,}

¶46

(Vioilance Securitv) Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶47

2 ihd .toint Managin6^{Director, The Teiangana State Road Transport}

¶48

Corooration, Musheerabad,^Hyderabad.

¶49

a in"Gini oii""tor^{(Vigilance and Security), Telangana State RoadTransport} Comoration Hvderabad.

¶50

4 The Vigilance^'and Security Officer,^{Telangana StaleRoadTransport} Coroor-ation Kanmnaoar Zone,^{KarimnagarDistrict.}

¶51

5 ond cc to sRl MoHD ASIFUDDIN,^Advocate [oPUC] 6 One CC to SRI A. RAVI^{BABU (SCFOR TSRTC)} [OPUC]

¶52

7 Two CD Copies BN

/ ,l

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912024

ORDER

WP.No.22178 of 2015

rlF
1HE S T4 I6.
(
a)
0 4 FrE 2025 2
i
Dp 9O

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

D.Prabhakar Rao v. Apsrtc,Director,Hyd,and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Prabhakar Rao v. Apsrtc,Director,Hyd,and 3

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

Gurram Vasudeva Reddy Vs Central Electricity Authority

Stambam Khadi Ramesh Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

China Omkar, Vs The State of Telangana

Bachu Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Palepu Hanumantha Rao S/o. Ramaiah, Vs The Telangana Transmission Corporation

M/s Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited, Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana