Disposed

K. Ravinder Reddy v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 4 others

Telangana HC1 Jul 2025WP/26932/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A TSRTC driver removed from service after cash and ticket irregularities challenged the confirmation proceedings. Relying on parity with another driver reinstated with lesser punishment despite comparable misconduct, the Court set aside the removal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings dated 31.12.2015 set aside; reinstatement into service without back wages but with continuity of service within eight weeks.

K. Ravinder Reddy Vs The Telangana State Road… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIRST^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶7

WRIT PETI^{TION NO: 26932OF 2019}

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Ravinder Reddy,^{S/o. Pulla Reddy,Aged ab^out 49 Years,Occ Ex Driver'R/o'} fi.f.'f". O fl" f-tCH':+4,^{ne HA CotonyNeir JB Gardentvloula- Ali Hyderabad.}

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Telangana State^{RoadTransport Corporation and 4 others, Rep'byits} lvlanaging Director,^{[\Iusheerabad, Hyderabad}

¶13

The Executive Director^{( Greater Hyderabad Zone ), Telangana State Road} Transport Corporation^{Musheerabad Hyderabad'}

¶14

The Regional Manager,^{TSRTC, TSRTC Hyderabad' Region, Hyderabad} District.

¶15

The Divisional Manager,^{Sanathnagar Division, Sanath Nagar Hyderabad'}

¶16

The Depot Manager,^{MiyapurI Depot Miapur, Hyderabad'}

¶17

....,RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article^{226 of lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate^{writ, orderor direction more particularly onein} the nature of^{wRlToF MANDAMUS declaringthe proceedingsNo. PA120 (146)} t201'-GHZ daled^{31t12t2015of the 2nd respondent inconfirmingthe proceedings} of the lower authorities^{is illegal, arbitrary, contraryto the APSRTC Service} Regulations, discriminatory^{one and as well as the violation of the fundamental} rightsguaranteedundertheconstitutionoflndiaSetasidethesameconsequently direct the respondents^{to reinstatethe petitioneras a driver with all service} attendant benefits.

¶19

=v7

¶20

|.A.NO:1 OF 2019

¶21

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the ctrcumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to} direct the respondents to^{appoint the petitioner as a driver by suspending the} proceedingsNo.PAl2o(146)t2o15.GHZdaled31112120,15ofthe2nd respondent, forthwith^{pending disposal of the main writ petition'}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^B.BALAJI

¶23

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

¶24

The Court made the following^ORDER

¶25

t' //

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.26932 of 2Ol9

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in respondent-Road Transport Corporation in the year 1995. While discharging his duties on lO.ll .2014, the respondents-Corporation alleged that he committed cash and ticket irregularities. Based on the said allegation, the respondent-Corporation issued a charge sheet dated 13.11.2014 and placed the petitioner under suspension. Challenging the same, he Iiled W.P.No.37328 of 2OI4 and the same is pending. Thereafter, the respondent authority ordered an enquiry, and the enquiry ofhcer AS conducted an enquiry without following the procedure contemplated under the APSRTC Services and submitted a report to the 4tt' respondent holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. Based on the said report, a show-cause notice dated 15.04.20 15 was issued, and the petitioner submitted an explalation on 24.04.2015. The 4tn respondent, without considering the same, removed the petitioner from serrrice uide proceedings dated 25.04.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner hled an appeal and a

¶29

NBK,J W-P. No.25932 of²⁰¹⁹

¶30

¶31

revision, and the salne were rejected uide proceedings dated 08.05.2015 and 14.10.2O15. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the 2"a respondent, and the sarne was rejected uicle proceedings dated 31.12.2015. It is further stated that in the case of P.Raju, a Driver of their depot, who committed serious cash a-nd ticket irregularities, he has been reinstated into service by imposing a punishment of reduction of pay by t'"vo incremental stages, which shall have effect on future increments, through proceedings dated 18.04.2018. The action of the respondents in taking a different stand in a similar case arnounts to a colourable exercise of power. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶32

Heard Sri B.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Stalding Counsel for TSRTCrespondent Corporation. Perused the record.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and contended that petitioner had rendered ovcr two decades of service, and had not committed arty major misconduct during the discharge of his duties in the past. He further stated that the petitioner is having two

¶34

NBK,,I W.P. No.26932 oI 2019

¶35

children, who are prosecuting higher studies and there^{is no} lncome except employment in the Corporation. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the 2.d respondent

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondentCorporation submits that petitioner is a Driver,^was adequately trained before being assigned to the TIMS^(Ticket Issuing Machine System) service and did not raise aly objection at that time or in the appeal or review^proceedings. The petitioner cannot seek parity with alother^employee,as the facts are distinguishable. In the^present case, the^amount involved is Rs.2,OOO/-, and the petitioner deliberately collected the fare but failed to issue valid tickets to^the passengers. Had the checking not occurred, the Corporation would have suffered a loss of legitimate revenue. It is^also relevant to point out that petitioner was previously removed from service on 14.O7.2Ol1 for misconduct but was reinstated on appeal. Therefore, he cannot contend that this is his first instalce of misconduct. The^present writ^{petition, challenging} the removal order passed by the disciplinary authority,^{is not}

¶37

NBK,I W.P. No.z5932 of 2019

¶38

¶39

maintainable, as the s:cpe cf j.idicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. The petitioner ought to have approached the Labour Court for appropriate relief. Moreover, the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings dated 37.12.2015 after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than five years. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

Consiclering the submissions made by both learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has served the Corporation for over t\4,o decades with a clean record, except for a previous removal which r.vas subsequently reinstated. It is also noted that in a similar case involving P. Raju, who was found guilty of comparable misconduct, a lesser punishment of reduction of pay by two increments was imposed along with reinstatement. In view of the principle of parity, the same relief is appropriate for the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings dated 3I.12.2015 are liable to be set aside.

¶41

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the proceedings dated 31.12.2015. Respondent No.2 is

¶42

IiIBU w.P. No.26932 of 2019

¶43

¶44

:::ta

¶45

directed to reinstate the petitioner into service without^any back wages but with continuity of service, and to^pass appropriate orders within a^period of eight⁽⁸⁾ weeks from^the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order

¶46

as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendine i. thi"^{.^'-;t}

¶48

petition, shall stand closed.

¶49

¶50

SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA^RAO SI ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

The Managing Director,^{TelanganaStateRoad Trans} rt Corporation, Musheerabad, HYderabad.

¶55

Z. ine^giJcutive Director^{(Greater Hyderabad Zone), Telangana State Road} Transport Corporation Musheerabad^Hy-derabad

¶56

The Fiegional^{'tvlanager,fSRTC,TSRTC Hyderabad, Region, Hyderabad} District.

¶57

a ihe Oivisional Manager, Sanathnagar^{Division, Sanath Nagar Hyderabad'} 5. The Depot Manager,^{MiyapurI Depot Miapur, Hyderabad'}

¶58

One CC to SRI B.BALAJI,^Advocate [OPUCI

¶59

One CC to SRI R.ANURAG,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

Two CD Copies SA BS

¶61

HIGH COURT

¶62

DATED:01 1O712025

¶63

----'
,a!-- l tlE lltl
..a'
..<-
j,-,
ir ''l 04 AUE zffi
i'
.,.
:,
\i.

ORDER

WP.No.26932 ot 2019

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

<br>IDY{-
Sr'l

K. Ravinder Reddy v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ravinder Reddy v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bobby Ratandeep Vaddi Vs State of Telangana

Smt.M.Anuradha Vs v.Karuna

Smt. G.Tulasi Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

B.Ramulu Vs The Superintending Engineer

Smt. M. Amrutha Vs The Telangana State Public Service Commission

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Ecil, Hyderabad Vs Shri.L.Satyanarayana, Hyderabad