Partly allowed

M.Jayasree v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC16 Sept 2025WP/29641/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A TSRTC conductor challenged disciplinary punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. Relying on a prior order of the same Court in W.P. No.15059 of 2008, and with respondents not disputing coverage, the writ petition was partly allowed on those terms.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed in terms of the order dated 30.12.2022 in W.P. No.15059 of 2008 modifying the punishment; no order as to costs.

M.Jayasree Vs The Telangana State Road Transport… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:29641 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

UrJ_qy?rlg.,^{D/o. Ramprasad,} .^Aged .^{about 36 years,conductor(E.237160),} TSRTC Miyapur-! Bus Depot, Hyd-erabad, TelanriJna Strate

¶9

AND

¶10

...PET|T|ONER

¶11

1 . The Telangan_a State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director. bus Bhavan, Musheerabbd, T.S.'

¶12

The Reoional N'lanaoer, TSRTC, secunderabad Region, JBS, Secunderabad, T.S.

¶13

The Divisional Manaoer, TSRTC, Kukatpally Division, at Kukatpally. Hyderabad, T.S.

¶14

The Depot Manager, Miyapurl Bus Depot, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^'ciurt may ue pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly oie in the natuie of in writ of mandamus declaring that the action of ine +tlr iespondent t "r"in imposing the punishment of reduction of petitioner pay by two incremental stagei for a period of two (2) years \flith cumurative effect which-was modified by the ird respondent confirmed by 2nd respondent as deferment of petitionei annual increment for a period of two years with cumurative effect as uau aroitrary anJ illegal by setting aside of the order No 02l9s(5) /201g-Myp-l and consequlniial orders dt.12-6-202o and 31-1-2022 of the 2nd and 3rd respondent herein and direct the respondents not to effect the above said punishment to the petitioner.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKATESWAR RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRt R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶21

WRIT PETITION o-2964L ol 2(,22

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel dppearing on behalf of^petitaoner and^{Miss Janaki, Iearned} counsel representing Sri R. Anurag, learned^Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing on behalf of^respondents.

¶24

The petitioner approached the Court seeking^prayer as under:

¶25

"...to issue a writ or order or direction^{moreparticularly one} in the nature of writ of Mandamus declarinq that the^action of the 4th respondent herein in imposing the^{punisfimeilt of} reduction of petitioner^pay by twc incremental Etages for^a period of two (2) years with cumulative effect which was modified by the 3rd respondent confirnred by 2nd rer;pondent as deferment of^petitioner annual increment^for a^{period of} two years with cumulative effect as bad arbitrary and^illegal by setting aside of the order No 02195(5) /2019-|4YP-I^and consequential orders dt.12-6-2020 and 3l-l-2o22 of lhe^2nd and 3rd respondent herein and direct the respondents^not to effect the above said^punishment to the^{petitioneranclpass.."}

¶26

When the matter is taken uo for hea rino.^learned counsel apoearano on behalf of the^petitioner submits that the subiect issue in the oresent writ oetitaon is souarelv

¶27

¶28

SN, J wP-2964t_2022

¶29

covered bv the order of this Court dated 3O.12.2O22 oassed in W.P. No.15O59 of 2OO8 and the recent orders of this Court dated 19.O7.2O24 oassed in W.P.No.26724 of 2Ol9 and the order dated 16.09.2025 inW P. No.1939 of 2O21 on the basis of the said order dated 3O.12.2O22 oassed in W.P. No.15O59 of 2OO8.

¶30

The Relevant oortion of the order of this Court dated 3O.12.2O22 oassed in W.P. No. 15O59 of 2OO8 is extracted hereunder:

¶31

"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the length of services rendered by'the petitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the quantum of punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect^fora period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of punishment shall have^prospective effect only from the date of^passing of this order and^the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the^{period prior} to^passing of this^order".

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the^said submission made by the learned counsel appearing^on behalf of the^petitioner.

SN. J \P 296{ I 2012

! I

In view of the said submissions made by both the learned counsel, the writ petition is parfly allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 3,c..12.2c'22 passed in W.P. No. 15059 of 2OO8. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

Sd/.B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR d

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

1 . The IVanaging Director, The_T_elangana State Road Transport Corporation, bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, T.S.

¶44

Th_e Regional Manager, TSRTC, secunderabad Region, JBS, Secunderabad, T.S.

¶45

The Divisional Manaoer TSRTC, Kukatpally Division, at Kukatpa y, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶46

The Depot lvlanager, Miyapur-l Bus Depot, Hyderabad, T S.

¶47

One CC to Sri P. Venkateswar Rao, Advocate [OpUC]

¶48

One CC to Sri R. Anurag(SC for TSRTC) [OpUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies

¶50

¶51

(Along with the Copy of Order dated ZO.12.2O2Z tn W.p.No.15059 OF 2O0S)

IPMK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 6t09t2O2S

ORDER

WP.No.29641 of 2022

/:
-/,'
/''t,'-'
/., k''
t'
a:'.J
0 2 rii 2025 I
{* +
i(ll1 I,

¶58

PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

¶60

¶61

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶62

l[.P.No.15059 OF 2OO8

¶63

CEIIISIrE

¶64

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents' Corporation.

¶65

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of reducing the petitioner's basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, and treating the suspension period as 'not on duty', as bad, arbitrary, illegal, and disproportionate and consequently to set aside the Office order No. 02/95(27)/99-DVK, dated ll.O2.2OOO passed by 1"t respondent.

¶66

::,

¶67

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lvas appointed as a "Conductor" in the respondents'Corporation. On 01.O8.1999 while he was performing his duties en route Devarakonda to Pogilla, a check was conducted at Stage No.16 (Pogilla). During the check, the inspection staff of the Corporation noticed cash and ticket irregularities. Subsequently, a charge memo dated O1.08.1999 was issued to the petitioner for the aforesaid lapses. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted his explanation but the respondents' Corporation has not issued any reply. Subsequently, the respondents'

¶68

¶69

Corporation had issued charge sheet dated 24.09.1999 along^with suspension order stating that the petitioner^failed to collect ticket^fare from passengers. The petitioner submitted explanation on29.O9.L999 to the above said charge sheet. Later, the respondents' Corporation conducted an enquiry and^passed final order^{Nc.O2/95(271/99-DVK,} dated L7.O2.2OOO by the 1st respondent imposing^{punishment of} withholding of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and the period of suspension is treated as^{'not on} duty'. Tliereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the^2nd respondent on 04.07.2OO7. Later the 2nd respondent rejected his appeal on 24.O8.2OO7 as time barred, after lapse of seven^years. Again ttre petitioner filed a Review Petition on 01 .O9.2OO7 before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda and the same was rejected.

¶70

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Enquiry Officer without considerinli the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, submitted the enquiry report. He further contended that at the trme of checking, trvo passengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets and not paid the bus fare. Hence, the ticket fare was, collected from the passengers by the TTI and'also imposed a fine of Rrs.SO/-. He further contendeC. that other two passengers also have given statements that they have hoarded the top of the bus while the bus was in slow motion when the sheep cattle was crossing before the bus without the

¶71

¶72

knowledge of the petitioner as well as driver of the bus and they have not paid ticket fare and colrected the tickets from the petitioner. The above said statements of the passengers itserf would estabrish that there was no intention of misappropriation of any amounts and the petitioner has not caused any ross to the respondents, corporation. The lst respondent without considering the above said aspects passed the impugned order imposing punishment withhording of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment though the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation while discharging his lawful duties as a Conductor.

¶73

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents' corporation after following the due procedure contemplated under the Regulations and after conducting enquiry by duly appointing an Enquiry officer and that apart considered the explanation of the petitioner as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, impugned order was passed on ll.O2.2OOO; and as such there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by 1st respondent.

¶74

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, apparentry, the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the charge sheet for the charges levelred against him. The petitioner has emphatically contended that at the time of checking, two passengers have given statements that they have not taken tickets and not paid the bus fare and other two passengers have arso given

¶75

¶76

statements that they^{have boardedthe top of tht: bus while the bus} was in slow motion when the^{sheep cattle was crossing beforethe bus} without the knowledge of the^{petitioner as wellets driver of the bus} and further stated that they^{havenot paid ticketfare and collected the} tickets from the^{petitioners. The learned counst:lfor the petitioner} rightly contended that the^{respondents'Corporation without} considering the statements^{given by the passengers and without} properly considering the explanation^{submittedby the petitioner to the} ctlarge sheet, passed the^{impugned order againstthe doctrine of} proportionality basing on the report^{submitted by the EnquiryOfficer} imposed punishment of^{withholdingannual grade incrementsfor a} period of trvo years with cumulative^{effect.The respondents'} Corporation has faileC to establish^{that the act ol'the petitionerwas} intentional in not issuing the^{tickets to the passengersand he played} a fraud to cause colossal financial^{loss to the respondents'} Corporation exchequer but it^{amounts to onlyneEJigenceon the part} of the petitioner. In such circumstances,^{the respondents' Corporation} ought not to have imposed^{punishment;nalnely,stoppageof} increments for a period of two^{yearswith cumulativeeffect, which, in} the considered opinion of this Court^{is a majorpunishment.}

¶77

Taking into consideration of the^{factsand circumstancesof the} case and also the length of^{service rendered by the petitioner, this} Court deems it fit and^proper to^{modify the quanturnof punishmentof}

¶78

¶79

stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order.

¶80

Subject to the above modification, the writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶81

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶82

JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶83

Dated: 30.12.2022 skj

M.Jayasree v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jayasree v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Nagaiah Vs State of Telangana

P.Raheem Vs The District Collector

Shaik Amjad Vs The State of Telangana

Narakongu Nagamani, Vs The State of Telangana

V. Komuraiah, Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

K.Nagarju Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation