Allowed¶152

R. Sudhakar v. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Service law – TSRTC

Telangana HC24 Jul 2025WP/16611/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No. 16611 of 2023, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, decided 24.07.2025 by Surepalli Nanda, J. Keywords: TSRTC; Regulation 30 temporary promotion; Clause (5) reversion without notice; Depot Manager to Assistant Manager (Traffic); Armoor Depot; show cause notice 19.10.2016; delay and laches; infructuous relief after retirement; Article 226 writ of mandamus; Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311; TGSRTC C.C.A. Rules; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 232 relied on; Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha (2015) 3 SCC 1 referred; writ petition allowed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed without costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed. ¶152

R. Sudhakar Vs The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed without costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶152

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings of the 1st respondent/Managing Director, TSRTC No.EC/674(02)/2016-PD dated 17.12.2016 reverting the petitioner from Depot Manager to Assistant Manager (Traffic) under Clause (5) of Regulation 30 of the TSRTC Recruitment Regulations, 2004, are arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violative of natural justice, of Articles 14, 16 and 21 and Article 311 of the Constitution and of the TGSRTC C.C.A. Rules, and whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion as Depot Manager from the date of reversion till retirement (30.06.2018) with consequential benefits. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The writ petition challenging the reversion of the petitioner from Depot Manager to Assistant Manager (Traffic) vide proceedings dated 17.12.2016 is allowed.

¶152

Ratio / Principle

The pleas of delay, laches and infructuous relief did not bar relief: the Court took into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 232 (paras 7, 8, 10 and 11, extracted in the order), including that delay or laches by itself would not be sufficient to shut the doors of the court on a petitioner alleging violation of fundamental rights, and allowed the petition filed about five years after the reversion order and after the petitioner's retirement.

¶137

Key takeaways

There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶140
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.ratio¶143

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - TSRTC - reversion from temporary promotion under Regulation 30. The petitioner, promoted as Depot Manager, Armoor on a purely temporary basis under Regulation 30 of the T.S.R.T.C. Employees' (Recruitment) Regulations, 2004, was reverted to his former post of Assistant Manager (Traffic) by proceedings No.EC/674(02)/2016-PD dated 17.12.2016 invoking Clause (5) of Regulation 30 on administrative grounds, after a memo dated 17.09.2016 and a show cause notice dated 19.10.2016 (occupancy-ratio fall and CPK rise; depot inspection of 05-06.11.2016) went unanswered. He challenged the reversion under Article 226 as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 and of the TGSRTC C.C.A. Rules, seeking promotion as Depot Manager till retirement (30.06.2018) with consequential benefits. The respondents opposed on grounds of delay (writ filed 26.06.2023, about five years after reversion and after superannuation) and infructuousness. Taking into consideration the Apex Court's observations in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 232 (paras 7, 8, 10, 11) - including that delay or laches by itself would not shut the doors of the court where fundamental rights are invoked - the Court ALLOWED the writ petition, with no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16611 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

R. Sudhakar, Retired Asst. Manager^(T) Age.62^{Years E.110571,of Warangal- 1} Depot, Warangal District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana^{State RoadTransport} Corporation Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad^{- 20.}

¶12

The Executive Director^{(Engineering),Telangana State Road Transport} Corporation Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad^{- 20.}

¶13

The Regional Manager, Nizamabad^{RegionNizamabad District}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, lt is therefore prayedthat this} Hon'ble Court may be^pleased to issue a^{Writ, Order or Direction,more} particularly in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring^{Proceedingsof} the 1st Respondent / Managing^{DirectorBus BhavanHyderabad} No.EC/674(02)12016-PD, dated^{17.12.2016is arbitrary illegal unconstitutional} apart from violating the Principles^{of NaturalJustice and also violatingArticles14,} 16 and 21 of the Constitution of^{lndia and ultra vires to Rulesof TGSRTCC.C.A} Rules as well as Article 311 of^{Constitution of lndiaand consequently direct the} respondents to^promote the^{petitioner as DepotManager from the dateof} reversion orders till his retirement on^{30.06.2018with all consequentiat benefits}

¶16

ii rl I

¶17

iii IIiiil

¶18

and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of administration of Justice.

¶19

(As per Court Order, dated 1610712025 vide l.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.p.No.16611 of 2023. Prayer is amended)

¶20

lA NO: 1 oF 2024

¶21

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 pass or W.P No. 1661 1 of 2023 in singularity covered with the order passed m W.p.No. 15057 of 2007.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

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 suspend the operation of Proceedings of the 1st respondent / Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad No. Ect6t4(02)tzo16-pD, Dated 11.12.2016, 3rd respondent / Regional Manager, Nizamabad Region, No. pA/535(02)tzo1lRMNZB' dated 28.03.2018, Consequential Proceedings of 1st respondent / Vicechairman and Managing Director, TSRTC, Hyderabad Nl p111 g(23)t2o1g-po (1R)' dated 03.11.2022 and direct the respondents to pay the recovered amount of Rs.. 13,85,160/- to the petitioner in respect of ELs amount as per own leave regulations and conditions on the payment RPS arrears certificate conditions contained on it and RPS arrears Rs. 1.55 with 8.75 interest, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶24

lA NO: 2 oF 2024

¶25

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 consider the representations dated 1 1 .06.201g, 06.05.2024 and 06.05.2024 and release my amount which was reduced by two incremental stages from 44030 to 42010 and deducted amount of Rs.5000/- from my salary w.e.f., April-2018 to June, 2018 and differential gratuity of reduced two incremental stages and to Re-consider my request for Notional promotion to the

¶26

Post of Depot Manager from the Post of Assistant Manager (Traffic), Warangal - | Depot from 12.06.2015 to 30.06.2018 (till the retirement date).

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.PRABHAKAR

¶28

counser ror the Respondent No.1to3 , ?SIsH+SRi3isffErl,

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard Sri R. Prabhakar, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and sri. N. chandra sekhar, learned standing counset for Telangana state Road Transport corporation zone-2, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶33

¶34

as under:

¶35

"...to issue a writ, order or Direction( more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring proceedings of the 1:;t Respondent / Managing Director Bus Bhavan, "^{HyderabadNo ECl674(02i/20L6_pD,} dated L7_L2_2Ot6 is arbitra.y illegal unconstitutional apart from violating the Principies of Natural lustice and also violating Articles 14, 16 and 2L of the constitution of India and ultra vires to Rules of TGSRTC c c A Rules as well as Article 311 of constitution of India and consequenfly direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Depot Manager from the date of reversion orders till his retirement on 30.06.2018 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of administration of Justice...,,.

SN, J wp_1661 l_2021

The case of the petitioner in brief is that^{petitionerwas} initially appointed as Traffic Inspector, Grade-II on^13-07-1989, and secured^promotion as^{Traffic Inspector,Grade-I on 12-06-} 1996 and further^promoted as^{Assistant Manager (Traffic)and} thereafter^promoted as Depot^{Manager vide Order dated} 10.06.2015. Thereafter, the^{petitioner was reducedin rank from} Depot Manager to Assistant Manager^{(Traffic), Warangal-I vide} impugned order dated L7.L2.20t6^{and whereas petitioner's} juniors continued as Depot Managers/Unity Officers.^The petitioner filed appeal and the same was^pending till^his retirement i.e., 30.06.2018. The^{petitioner submitted a} re.presentation dated 14.06.2018 to^{the Managing Directorto} promote him as Junior Scale Officer and the^{same has also been} pending till his retirement. The^petitioner was^{charged on the} ground that he failed to insist the Traffic^{Supervisors for} submission of requisition of^{monthly Toll Plaza Ticketsand} petitioner had failed to^procure Toll Plaza^{Tickets at Armoor} Depot from September 2015^{to November2016, as a result,an} excess amount of Rs. 2t,46,970/-^{was paid at ArmoorDepot} towards Toll Plaza^{Tickets,which is illegal. Aggrieved by the} Order dated L7.t2.2O16^{of the Respondent No.1, the petitioner}

SN, J wp_|661 I 2023

approached this court by filing the present writ petition and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Depot Manager from the date of reversion orders till petitioner's retirement i.e., ofl :0.00.2018 with all consequentia I benefits.

¶44

4. PERUSED THE RECORD

¶45

(A)

¶46

same is extracted hereunder:

¶47

"... Pleased to Amend the main prayer portion in w.P.No.1661L of zo23 as follows "it is therefore prayed that . this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring^proceedings of the 1.t Respondent/ Managing Director Bus Bhavan Hyderabad No.ECl674)oz)/2oL6-pD, dated LZ.L2.2016 is arbitrary illegal unconstitutional apart from violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and ultra vires to Rules of TGSRTC c.c.A. Rules as well as Article 311 of constitution of India and consequenUy direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Depot Manager from the date of reversion orders till his retirement on 30.06.2019 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of administration of Justice.,,

SN, J wp_1661t_2023

(B) The order imouqned dated 17.12.2016^passed

¶52

hv the Resoondent No.l-Manaoing Director, Bus Bhavan,

¶53

Mushirabad, Hvderabad is extracted hereqnder:

¶54

"TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶55

Office of the Managing Director Bus Bhavan, Mushirabad, Hyderabad -500624 Date: L7-72-2Or6

¶56

No.Ecl674(O2)/2016-P

¶57

OFFICE ORDER

¶58

Sub: REVERSION Reversion of Sri R Sudhakar,^E.110571. Depot Manager, Armoor working under Reg-30 to^his former post of Asst. Manager(Traffic)^- Orders Issued.

¶59

Ref: Office Order No.Eal255(04)/20L5-PD, Dt.03.06.2015 & 10.06.2015 ***

¶60

Sri R. Sudhakar, E.110571, Asst. Manager(T),^{RM's Office,} Warangal has been promoted temporarily under^{Regulation-3O} of T.S.R.T.C. Employees'^{(Recruitment)Regulationsas} Asst.Traffic Manager and^posted as Depot^{Manager,Armoor vide} reference cited. In view of the administrative exigency,^{he was} promoted to the post of Depot Manager without subjecting^him to the process of Selection.

¶61

Clause(5) of Regulation-30 of T.S.R.T.C.^Recruitment Regulations, 2004 states that, the appointing authority^shall have the powers to revert to a lower category^{or postany} person promoted temporarily under regulation 30 at any^time without assigning any reason and without^notice.

¶62

Sri R Sudhakar, E.11O571, Depot^{Manaoer, Armoor}

¶63

Reoulation-30 on administrative^grounds.

¶64

On reversion as Assistant Manager (Traffic), Sri^R. Sudhakar, E.110571 is directed to report to the^Executive

¶65

¶66

SN, J wp_t66tt _2023

¶67

Director(Administration), Head office, immediatery on receipt of this order, for further postings.

¶68

Sd/-xxx MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶69

¶70

Sri R. Sudhakar,

¶71

E.110571, Depot Manager, ARMOOR, T.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Region (c)

¶72

extracted hereunder:

¶73

"5. The petitioner was finally promoted as Depot Manager under proceedings No. Ea/255(04)/2015-pD dated 03.06.2015 and assumed charge on 12.06.2015 at Armoor Depot. It was explicitly stated in the promotion order that the promotion was purely based on temporary basis under Reg. 30of Recruitment Regulations-2004 and conferred no right to hold the post permanently or seek regularization. clause 5 of Regulation 30 Recruitment Regulations-2004 empowers the Appointing Authority to revert such an officer " to their substantive post without notice or assigning any reason.

¶74

It is respectfully submitted that prior to the issuance of reversion orders vide No. Ec/674(02)/zo].6-pD dated 17.L2.2OL6, the petitioner was issued a memo dated L7.09.2016, calling for explanation regarding his lapses as Depot Manager. Since no reply was furnished despite the lapse of more than one month, a detailed show cause notice was issued on 19.10.2016. The petitioner was clearly informed that his performance up to September 2016 was found unsatisfactory, with a fall in occupancy ratio by -2.2L and an increase in cost per Kilometer (cpK) by (+) sd lszos as against 3206), which was in deviation from expected performance.

¶75

It is respectfulry submitted that in addition to performance decline, a detailed inspection was conducted at

SN. J wp l66ll._2023

Armoor Depot on 05.11.2016 and 06.11.20L6, which revealed several serious administrative lapses and gross managerial indifference. These included dereliction of early morning duties, decline in punctuality, failure to conduct line checks or gate meetings, refund of security deposits to conductors without accounting concurrence, and noncompliance with financial protocols such as non-transfer of funds to Corporation accounts. Further, violations were noted in tyre scrap handling, Kilo Meter Per Litre^(KMPL) figures, inflation cltecks, absenteeism cases, and instructions of Accounts Manual. The petitioner's habitual absenteeisnr was cited as a root cause for non-implementation of Corporation circulars.

¶80

It is respectfully submitted that the entire relief sought has become infructuous, as the^petitioner retired from service on 3O.O6.2018, while the^present writ petition was filed only on 26.06.2023. after a delay of nearly five years. The core^prayer to set aside the order to reduce the rank is hot legally sustainable after superannuation. Post-retirement, such retrospective claims are not legally^permiqsible, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay, laches, and for seeking an infructuous relief".

¶81

(D) Thd show cause notice dated 19.1O.2016 issued

¶82

"TELANGANA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORTION

¶83

No. PA/Com p(l) / 20 L6- Peshi.,

¶84

Office of the MD, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad, Dt.19.10.2016

¶85

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

¶86

¶87

Sri.R.Sudhakar, Depot Manager, Armoor.

tb*

SN, J wp_l66tl_2023

Sub:DERELICTION: Failure to submit explanation to the Memo Reg.

¶92

Ref:- Memo no. even. Dt,*17.9.2016.

¶93

Your attention is drawn to the memo referred above wherein you were called to explain (1) Bad condition of toilets of Kammarpally, Mortad, Bheemgal & pirket Bus stations (2) Utilizing of employees on o.D (3) Advised to submit the details of attendance of yourself and your front line supervisors for monitoring early morning dispatch duties in the depot for the past one month day wise, within 3 days.

¶94

I have reviewed the performance of your depot upto Sept, 2016 in comparison with corresponding period of last year and noted that the occupancy ratio has come down to 6g.740/o as against 70.95o/o of last year showing decline trend by -2.zLo/o and also the total cPK for said period as gone upto 3265 as against 32OO showing an increase in CpK by (+) 59.

¶95

It is noted that you are yet to submit your explanation though more than a month has elapsed.

¶96

I view the same very seriously. please show cause to as to why you should not be reverted to your former post of Asst.Manager(T), in view of your indifference and gross negligence, immediately.

¶97

Acknowledge receipt

¶98

MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶99

The rned crru annearin on behalf of the

¶100

i) The petitioner had been promoted under clause 5 of Regulation 30 of T.s.R.T.c. Employees' (Recruitment)

¶101

¶102

SN, J wp 166l I 2023

¶103

Regulations as Assistant (Traffic) Manager and posted as Depot Manager, Armoor vide office order No.Eal ZS5(04)/2015-pD, dated 03.06.2015 and 10.06.2015. But shockingly, the petitioner received impugned proceedings dated 17.12.2OL6 issued by respondent No.1 reverting the petitioner to his former post of Assistant Manager (Traffic) with immediate effect invoking Clause (5) of Regulation-3O of TSRTC Recruitment Regulations2004 on administrative grounds.

¶104

ii) No prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order dated L7.12.20t6 and the .plea that the petitioner was put to notice dated 19.10.20t6 by the respondents as averred in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, is factually incorrect and false, since the petitioner did not receive any show-cause notice prior to issuance of the impugned proceedings and the petitioner to that effect has filed reply affidavit and in particular at para Nos. 3 and 5 petitioner specifically denied the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶105

¶106

SN, J wp t66l I 2023

¶107

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit contends that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2018 and the present writ petition had been fired on 26.06.2023, after a delay of five (05) years and that the petitioner had been put on prior notice dated 19.10.2016 prior to passing of the impugned order, dated 17.12.2016, but however, the petitioner failed to submit any explanation, hence the order impugned had been passed.

¶108

¶109

10 SN,^J rvp_1661^1-2023

SN, J wp_.l66ll 2023

order dated 17.1 2.20a6oft e Manaqino Dtre r,TSRTC, ur n h th n titi n allowed.

¶114

The ole of the res onde ts that th re had beena la n f e tn h h tm uqnedo ceedinqs 17.L2 2016 ol the Manaoi nq T n n s t e tw it oi n en ff am al h th t er e ul n sh the doors of iu rce fortheoetitio er.

¶115

Th c d n ali wt th ct d n t n m tal h r in2 2 c tn 2 tn at others Vs. StateofBihar oth rs dt. 2L.O .2022 at Pa ras 7.8, 1O, 11. it is observed as under:

¶116

Para 7: Article 32 of the Constitution provides for a Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. The founding fathers contemplated that the very rigit to afproach this Court when there is a violation bf iunOamJntat Rights, should be declared as beyond the reach oi parliament anO, therefore, it is as a part of judicial review inat tne rignt under Article 32 has been put in place and invoked from

¶117

¶118

SN, J wp_1661 I 2021

¶119

time to time. That in a^given case,^{the Courtmay refuse to} entertain a^petition under^Article 32^{of the Constitutionis} solely a part of sell'restraint^{which is exercisedby the Court} having regard to various considerations^{which are germane} to the interest of^justice as^{also the appropriatenessof the} Court to interfere in a^{particular case. The right under} Article 32 of the Constitution^{remainsa FundamentalRight} and it is always open to a^{person complainingof violation} of Fundamental Rights to^{approachthis Court. This is, no} doubt, subject to the^{power of the court to relegatethe} party to other Proceedings.

¶120

Para B : At the heart of^{the constitution lies certain} principles which have, in fact, been^{recognised as part of} the basic structure. Article^{14 of the Constitutionproclaims} right to equality. The^{right against unfair State actionis} pirt of Article L4. Unequals being^{treated equallyis} tabooed under Article L4 of^{the Constitution.A person} entitled to be treated as a^{member of Scheduled Tribe} under Article 342, cannot^{be treated on par with a person} who is brought in by an^{incompetentBody, viz., the State} in the manner done. Article 2t^{of the Constitution again is} the fountain head of many^{rights whichare part of the} grand mandate which has been from^{time totime} unravelled by this court^{giving rise to the theory of} unenumerated^{rights under the Constitution. While liberty} is a dynamic concept^{capableof encompassingwithin it a} variety of Rights, the^{irreducibleminimumand at the very} core of liberty, is^{freedomfrom unjustifiable custody'}

¶121

we may take up the^{first preliminary objectionby the} state, namely, that the^{petitioners have approached this} Court with considerable^{delay.The impugned Notificationis} issued in August, 20L6.^{A person cannotbe said to be} aggrieved merely upon^{the issuance of an instrument or of} a law by itself. In fact,^{the court may refuse to examine} the legality or the validity^{of a law or order on the basis} that he may have no^{locus standi or that he is not an} aggrieved^person. No doubt,^{the courts have recognized} cnittenge to even a legislation^{at the hands of a public} interesf litigant. However, we^{may only indicate, ordinarily,} the Court may insist on a cause of^{action and therefore,a}

¶122

rb {,

¶123

¶124

SN. J rvp_ l66l l_?023

¶125

person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge. We must not be oblivious to the fact that based on the Notification, it appears that FIRs .urn" to be lodged by persons claiming to be members of the Scheduled Tribe community and seeking to invoke the l9B9 Act. The FIRS Iodged in the year 2O2O occasioned the petitioners to approach Courts seeking protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Two of the petitioners have noi iicureO such protection. Petitioner No. 1, it appears *u. not arrested. But even. assuming for a moment, that the petitioners have :of:ⁱ⁹ .some^{delay, we find reassurance} from the opinion of this Court in the judgment reporteO in Assam Sanmitita. Mahasangha v. Union^-of tnoia (rtilj 3 SCC 1, wherein this Court has inter alia held us fof foi,_

¶126

F a B m M nici oal rDn., I has no been ncl ustv lv h td hat all fun am ntal nohts can ot be w tve (atoa ra 9). Giv nt ese lm ort nt w n violati ons oft ef nda en I riqht to lifea nd person I ti rW d lav orl achesb tself wttho tmore wou dn ot suffici ntt osh ut the doors of the cou on anv Detitlone r.

¶127

T e re, we do not hinkwe should be w n a a a d 2 I ofFun amental Riohts is clea lv sta e.

¶128

Takinq anto consideration :

¶129

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

¶130

case.

¶131

b) The submissions made by the tearned counse! appeartng on behalf of the petitioner and learned

v l

SN. J ^.p_1651l_2023

Standing Counsel, dppearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶136

c) The averments of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in particular para Nos.S, 6, l and 15 (referred to and extracted above),

¶137

d) The observation in the Apex Court judgment, reported in 2fJ22 scc online sc 232 (referred to and extracted above)

¶138

e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos. 5 to 9 of the present order.

¶139

¶140

oetitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶141

¶142

SN, J wp_I661 I 2023

¶143

Miscellaneous petitions, if dry, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶144

Sd/.AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAH A //TRUE COPYII -/ To, SECTION OFFICER 1 The Vice-Chairman co'p"''liiol,'E;!'Eri"',1.X)1iffi,.:8"!o''-"r3:.^{relansanastate} Road rransport

¶145

2 n n n a s ta te R o a d r ra n s p o rt l::f,l;,?J,| b,3,;?; ;: [: [?xs,,1'#?,_ IB : " 3' The Regionar Manager, Nizamabad Region Nizamabad District 4. One CC to SRt R.PRABHAKAR, Advocate. [OpUCJ s' one cc to sRr N..HANDRA .EKHAR, (sc FoR TSRTC zoNE 2). topucl 6. Two CD Copies. BPK BS M

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410712025

I F.F
a, )
()
l,i.?fi
J

¶150

ORDER

¶151

WP.No.16611 of 2023

¶152

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶153

<br>

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Office Order No.EC/674(02)/2016-PD dated 17.12.2016 issued by the 1st respondent Managing Director, TSRTC, reverting Sri R. Sudhakar (E.110571) from the post of Depot Manager, Armoor to his former post of Assistant Manager (Traffic) under Clause (5) of Regulation 30 of the T.S.R.T.C. Recruitment Regulations, 2004, on administrative grounds.¶58
Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, Mushirabad, Hyderabad · 17.12.2016
Prior proceeding
Petitioner promoted as Depot Manager, Armoor on temporary basis under Regulation 30 vide Office Order No.Ea/255(04)/2015-PD dated 03.06.2015 (and 10.06.2015); assumed charge on 12.06.2015.¶73
Prior proceeding
Memo dated 17.09.2016 calling for explanation regarding lapses as Depot Manager; show cause notice dated 19.10.2016 followed, proposing reversion for dereliction and unsatisfactory performance.¶74
Prior proceeding
Inspection of Armoor Depot on 05.11.2016 and 06.11.2016, cited by the respondents as revealing serious administrative lapses and gross managerial indifference.¶79
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's appeal against reversion remained pending until his retirement on 30.06.2018; representation dated 14.06.2018 to the Managing Director for promotion as Junior Scale Officer also remained pending till retirement.¶39
Prior proceeding
Petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2018; writ petition filed on 26.06.2023, after a delay of nearly five years, as urged by the respondents.¶80
Prior proceeding
Main prayer amended as per Court Order dated 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.16611 of 2023.¶19
Prior proceeding
Interim applications: I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking suspension of the reversion proceedings dated 17.12.2016 and consequential proceedings dated 28.03.2018 and 03.11.2022 and repayment of the recovered EL amount; I.A.No.1 of 2024; I.A.No.2 of 2024 seeking release of reduced increments, deducted salary, differential gratuity and notional promotion.¶23

R. Sudhakar v. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sudhakar v. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. a. Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana

K. Papaiah, And 16 Others Vs State of Telangana, And 34 Others

R P Subash Kumar (Died) Vs the State of Telangana

K. Hanumanthu Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

S.K. Jamal Saheb Vs The State of Telangana

U. Hanmaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others