Disposed

D. Damodar Rao, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC21 Oct 2024WP/32768/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A driver of the Road Transport Corporation, removed from service after ex-parte disciplinary enquiry into absenteeism and later reinstated by a review order subject to reporting within seven days, challenged cancellation of his reinstatement for non-reporting. The Court permitted him to file a representation with medical reports to be considered within twelve weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

D. Damodar Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁴ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32768 oF 2014

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

D. Damodar Rao, S/o. Venkat Rao, Aged about 5Z years. Ex-DriverfE203093), APSRTC, lbrahimpatnam Bus Depot, Ranla Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh state Road rransport corporation, Reoresented bv its The Vice-Chairman 86- Managing Director, eius Bnavanl ttlrrn""ri6"O, HyderabaC, Telangana State.

¶12

The Regional Manager, Andhra pradesh state Roac. Transoort corDoration 3 lh: ^ llyde;'a5ad Dep?i fegion, i,1anager IVGBS, Andhra pradesh State Gowtiguda Hyderabad, Teiangana Road. Tra"nspori Stjte Corporation.^{-- -'-'} l\lehdipatnam Bus Depot. Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under" Article 226 of rhe constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue 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 cancelling the reinstatement proceedings is bad arbitrary illegal by setting aside the office order. No.^{pA/zo(202)12o1} 1-HR dt. o4-o5-2o12 of the 2nd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner by reinstating him to duty by effecting the proc dt. 25-082011 of 2nd respondent herein with all consequential service benefits

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2O14(WPMP. NO:^{40974OF 20141}

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto} direct the respondents to allow the^{petitionerto his duty by effecting the Proc No.} PAI2O(202)1201 1-HR dt 25-08-2011 of^{2nd respondent herein forthwith}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^P. VENKATESWAR^RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.^{ANURAG (SCFORTSRTC)}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE^{SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMARJUKANTI}

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.^{32764oF 2()14}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This u rit pctition^{is lile d sccking thc iollou'ing relief}

¶24

". . . to issue a^{wit ororder ordirectionmore} parlicuLculA one^{bL the nafitre- oJ' Writ of Mandarnus} <leclanng tt:.ol^{the actionof tLE 2"d respondent} herett cancelling^{the reinslatcmentproceedingsis} barl, ctrbitrary.^{itteglat.b 1,1 setting aside the Office} Order No.PA/ -?O(2O2)/20t^{I.ItR dated04'05 2012} of the 2"')^{responrlentterein anclconsequentlll} rlir"ect lhe responclents^{to allotulh'e petitionerbt1} reinstatinq^{him to duty bq e-ffectitg the Proc dt'} 25.08.201I^{ofc"a responde-ntherein ruith all} corsequeriial serttice^{benefils nritl pa's's such other} order or orders."

¶25

Heard Mr. P.Venkatesh'*'er^{Rao, learneclcounsel lor} petitioner and Mr.^{R.Anurag, learncd Standing Counsel for} Telartgarta Statc^{Rozrd Transpoi-lCttrporation(TSRTC)for} rcspondents.

¶26

IJrrcf lacrs:

¶27

Pctilionct' \:r!i^{appointcdas a lJrive r in the year l9B9} tn respondent Corporation.^{Petitioner could not attend} dlrties in thc month^{ol Ma1', 2O03 due to health issues} Petilioner rl'as^{issucd Chargc Shcet on2.4.06.2003 lor}

¶28

¶29

-I

¶30

absentecism. lrro clrargcs rrcre franred against petitioner Charge Sheet u.as sent to thc available residential address of petitioner and the same !,as retur,ed with an endorsement,.Addressee not available.,. Charge Sheet u,as also exhibited on thc Norice Board of re spondent Corporation. Enquirll Ofliccr \r,as appointed and a detailed enquiry. n.as cond uctccl During thc course ol'enquir1., an lntimation Iettcr u,as sent to the residential address of petitioner. petitioner failed to attend enquiry, as such, the enquiry was conduded ex_parte on I l.lO.2O03 and the charges framed against the petitioner were held to be proved. Disciplinary Authority removed the petitioner from service r.l,ith immediate elfect br r.var. of proceedings, dated 10. I l.2OO3. An appeal u,:rs pr<:fcrrcd and the said appeal was rejected on 2O.06.2OI I. ,{ r6yis11, petition was filed and vide proceedings, datecl 25.08.20 I 1. Regional Manager, Hyderabad Rcgion. ta l< ing il s-'mpathetic vier.l, (on humanitarian grounds), set asicle the order of removal and rmposed the punishment ol reducing his pay by two rncremental stages for a period of. tu.o -r.cars having eflect on future increments and other conditions. By office order,

¶31

dated O4.O5.2O 12, the reinstatement^{order passedon} 25.08.2011 u'as cancelled, as petitioner^{failedto report for} duty at Mehdipatnarn Dcpot s-ithin^{seven days of the} review order^passed modil,r,ing the^{punishment of removal'} It is against this cancellation order,^{dated 04.05.2012,the} r.n,rit petition is filed.

¶32

Learned counsel [or^{petitioner submittedthat} petitioner was appointed as a Driver^{in the year 1989 in} respondent Corporatiot-t and he^{was performinghis duties} to the utmost satisfaction o[ the superiors.^{It is further} submitted that duc to health^{issues, petitioner was unable} to attend dutics arnd had t'to^{othcr motive. It isalso} submitted that removal ol petitioner^{from serviceis bad} and the sarne was modilied appropriately^{by the concerned} authorit-v b."- proccedi ngs. riated^{25.08.201 I .}

¶33

4.1 It is submitted that as^petitioner was suffering^with Jaundice . hc could not rcport^to dutv^{w'ithin sevendays ol} revier,r, order datcd 25.08.201 I and that there^{was no} ra,illful negligence on thc part^{of petitionerto join} duty.^{It is} further submitted tfrat pctitioncr^has been^{tacing financial}

¶34

¶35

..1

¶36

problems and is undergoing mental agony and that due to ill-health, pctitioncr could not attend d uties, rr.hich was considered as absentceism and the samc is inappropriate and impermissible

¶37

Learned Standing Counscl lor respondent Corporation submitted that petitioncr i.as rrnauthorizedly absent from duty on 17.O5.2003, 19.05.2003, 21.0S.2003, 24.O5.20O3, 26.O5.2003 and 29.O5.2003 riU 24.06.2OO3 and that a Charge Sheet u,as issucd lor unauthorized absenteeism on 24.06.2OO3. As petitioner did not ofler any explanation, I)isciplinar-v Authorit-r, aftcr lollowing due procedure and or-r the basis of cr_rquirl report (submitted b-y Enquiry Officer), imposed the punishmenr of removai from servrce vide proceedings dated 10. I1.2003. That against the order of rcmoval, petitioner prefcrred an appeal and subsequently a revie,*.. It is further submitted that in the revien,, petitioner was granted all opportunit,, to report to duty and was to bc rc instated inio sen,i<;c b-r. rcducing the punishment from that of removal to reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years ftzviqg

¶38

effect ol futurc incrcmcnts. It is also^{submittedthat} petitioner did not join dr-rtr n ithitr scven davs as^statedin order dated 25.08.2O1 I and as such, an order lvas^passed cancelling thc reirrstatr:mcnr on 0 1.05.20^I 2

¶39

I It is submitted. that after a vear, petitioner made a representation seeking cancellation of order, dated 04.05.2O12, b-r' n'hicl.r pctitioncr's re-instatement was cancelled lor non-reportir-lg to dut,r' rvithin seven days, rn,hich u'as a condition irnposecl vidc proceedings, dated 25.Oa.2Ol l . Learned Starrrcling Counse I has supported the order datcd 04.05.20 l2 and submittcd that pctitioner was granted enough opportunitv b1' taking a ienient and sympathetic vieu,, in spitc of u hrch pctitioner did not report for duty. I'lence, no intcrlcrcnce is ncccssitatcd.

¶40

Heard learncd cor-irrscls, pcruscd the rccord and considered thc riva I subttttssrotts

¶41

Petitioner nas emplo-r'ed as a Driver in the year i9B9 ln respondent Corporation. It is not in dispute that petitioner \ras absent on I 7.05.2003, 19.05.2003,

¶42

¶43

¶44

21.05.2003, 2:l .OS.200.1, 2(r.05.2003 and 29.OJ.2003 ril 24'06'2oo3. A chargc sheel \r,as issued on 21.06.2o03 and \'as communicated to the residential acldrr:ss of pctitioner. It was returned ri.ith an endorscment ,.Acldressee not . available". Charge ,Sheet was also exhibitecl on the Notice Board in the respondent Corporation. Enquir.,,_ Oflicer rr as appointed ro cond u<:t a dctailcd cnquirl. and the Enquiry Officer sen t a letter to pctitioner,s residen t ial address through RPAD to arrend the cnquir.r. on 26.09.2003 or 29.O9.2OO3 or 01.10.2003. petitioner l-ailed to artend the enquiry and thc letter of Enquiry Oflicer n,as rcturned rvith an endorsement^.,No such addressee,,. An ex-parte enquiry u.as conductcd on I I . I0.2003 and a report uas submitted holding that thc <;harg<:s lr:vclcd against thc pctitioncr ivere proved.

¶45

B. Disciplir-rar-r. At_rthoritv i.e., Dcpot IVI:rnager. vide proceedings, dared 10. I l.2OO3, imposed the punishment of removal from service, as the charges stood proved against the petitioncr, it was stated in thc proccr:rlings that petitioner's abscnce causcd. opcrational tncon venlence,

¶46

¶47

besideslossofrevenuetotherespondcntCorporation'[tis also stated in^{the proceedings that petitioner \t'as absent} for 5-6 da\rs^{in sven' month.}

¶48

9 Against the order^{of removal, pctitioner preferredan} \'al s rcjected b1'^{the concerned} appeal and^{the aPPeal} a authoritv on^{20.06.2OI I .t\gairrst' thc ordcr ol appeal'} revieu, tvas^{filed and revieu'ing authorit-r'i e'} '^Regional Manager, Hyderabad^{Region, tal<ing alenient view'} modified the^{order ofrcmoval vide procccdingsdated} 25.08.201 l,^{as follou's:}

¶49

"However, on^{perusalo[ his scrvice rccord' itis} observecl that this^{is being thc first rt':movalin his} service, on^{hum:rnilarialt grourltls a lr:nicnt vierv is} takcn and^{givr:n hinl etn ()[)l)t)ltLlllit-\ lo scrvcLhe} organizal-iot-t bv^{impr<>vinghis atLctrrl:rtlct in futurc} and be a^{profitablccmplol cc to t ltt: Corporation '}

¶50

Thcrclbrc, thc orcl<'r:;^{ol- t)M/ltll)arc sct asidc} and the follou'ir-rg^{orrlcrs arc issut'd:}

¶51

The pctitioncr^{shallbe rt'irtstatcd into scrviceas} Driver Gr.ll duly^{imposingthe punishment of} reducing his^{pay by two incrementalstages} for a period of^{TWOYEARS, itshalthaveits} own effect on his future^increments'

¶52

2.^'lhc pcriod^ft ttltl lht^{ciatt: ol- rt:troval ti11 date of} his reporting f<rr durl'^{al thc unit} posted on reinstatement shalt^{bt'trearcdzrs} "NOT ON

-t

DU'|Y" lor all purposes viz., pF, Gratuitv, Leavc, Incrt:rre nt. Promotion, including Seniority ctc., 3 I lc shor rlc_l pi{. lrcsh scc:trritl dcposit allcl prodricc valid driving liccncc :rnd also procluc<: "No ducs ccrtificatc,' from thc [)cp.)t m:r11.tg(.r, IBP I)cpot.

¶57

Ilc sl-rould rcport to the l)epor Manager, MEHDIPAT NAM l)cpor u'ithin sr.r cn clar s from ih. date of rcr:r'r pt of thcsc prorj(jedings. failine rvhich th<r order ol rcinstatc mcnt stand s cancelled.',

¶58

On a perusal of proceedings, dated 2S.Oa.2O1l , it is clear that petitioncr vvas grantcd an opportunit-r. to join dut-r' rlithin a rr cek,s timc. I,.cr the reasons best knos.n tcr petitioner, pctitioner did not avail the opportunit. of relnstatemeltt rr hich u.as ollcrt:d b.r, Regional Manager. tt is stated in thc al-fidar,it that petitioncr was suflering lrom Jaundice and as such, he could not avail such opportunity r,r,ithin the time granted bv proceedings dated 2S.0g.20I I altd that the same ,,r,as brought to thc notice of respondent Corporation and the Regional Manager, without appreciating thar peritioncr {.as suff<:ring from .Jzrundice. cancelled the rornstatcmcnt b.v order, dated 04.OS.2O12.

¶59

1 l. Learned counscl h;r^{pctitioner requested that} petitioner be^{permitt.cclttl nlakt: a r(:prcsenLationalong u'ith} medical reports,^{as petitioner has rctired fromservice on} attaining^{the age oI superannuatlon}

¶60

Having^{given a thoughtfulconside ration' this Court is} of the considered^{opinion that 'interestsof juslice would be} met, if petitioner^{is permittedto make a representation} along u,ittt medical^{reports. Respondcntauthoritiesshall} considei the^{representation and pass appropriateorders} within a^{period of trvclvc (12)u r;cks frorn thc date of re ceipt} of re^{pre sctrtatio n} '^{NcedlcssLo statc lhat pcritioncrshall} state all the^{reasons in his representation' which shall be} considered^{by respondent au th orities'}

¶61

Accordingll', the^{u'rit pctition is disposcd of' No ordcr}

¶62

as to costs

¶63

Misccllaneous^{pctitiorls, ifanr" pcnrling, shall stand}

¶64

SD/.MOHD.^ISMAIL cl<>sed ASSISTANT EGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY//

¶65

S ION OFFICER

¶66

To, 1 The Chairman^{and Managing Director. TelnanganaStateRoad Transport} a;;o;;;ti;;, d"^{eni;anl tvl"usneerabad,Hvderabad. TelanganaState'}

¶67

2 i;;'R;6;l Nt;naoer,^{TetanaginaState (oadrransporteorporationHyderabad} Reoion.-MGBS,^{Gowliguda.Hyderabad'I elangana State'}

¶68

J i'iJ'5.t"it,,t?"o6i,iBr""s"n'u^{State Road TransporrCorporalion, Mehdipatnam} Bus Debot Hvdeiabad,^{TelanqanaState}

¶69

4 6;;;ii,; 5hr.^{p. vetlxnrE"swARRAo Advocate [oPUC]} o;; aa io snr^{n. ANURAG(ScFoRTSRrc) [oPUC]}

¶70

6 Two CD Copies BM GJP (ft

¶71

HIGH COURT

¶72

DATED:21 11012024

¶73

ST,
J 2 B JAII 2025 c
*
"il

¶74

ORDER

¶75

WP.No.32768 of 2014

¶76

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶77

?o\s sLs?-U'5

D. Damodar Rao, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

D. Damodar Rao, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Srinivas and 2 Others, Vs Secy., Ministry of Finance,New Delhi, and 2 Others

T.Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Srivatsa Krishna, IAS Vs Sri. G. Ashik Kumar, President , IAS

Mohd.Ishaq Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Malothu Ramulu, Khammam Dist and 4 Others Vs Chairman and Md, Ts Genco, Hyderabad and 4 Others

G.Suguna, Secunderabad and 8 Others Vs Chairman, Lic, Central Office, Mumbai and 2 Others