Disposed¶31

P.Naresh v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC7 Feb 2025WP/29830/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court writ petition by RTC conductor challenging TSRTC departmental enquiry orders dated 07.07.2023 and 21.09.2023 (natural justice / Article 21 plea; Stanzen Toyotetsu and M. Paul Anthony (1999) 3 SCC 679 cited); matter settled before Lok Adalat on 14.12.2024; writ petition closed without costs on 07.02.2025 by Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao; pending IAs under Section 151 CPC closed; no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was closed following the Lok Adalat settlement of 14.12.2024, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications stood closed. ¶31

P.Naresh Vs The Telangana State Road Transport… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was closed following the Lok Adalat settlement of 14.12.2024, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

As pleaded by the petitioner (not adjudicated by the Court): whether the order dated 07.07.2023 ordering departmental enquiry and the proceedings dated 21.09.2023 calling for remarks/comments were illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution, having been issued without following any procedure and without appointing any Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

In view of the petitioner's counsel informing the Court that the matter had been settled before the Lok Adalat on 14.12.2024, no further orders were necessary and the Writ Petition was closed; there shall be no order as to costs. The merits of the challenge to the departmental enquiry orders were not adjudicated.

¶31

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (No. 29830 of 2023) under Article 226 by P. Naresh, an RTC conductor (under suspicion) of Narayanpet Depot, against the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and others, challenging proceedings in Pl/197/(03)/2023-NRPT dated 07.07.2023 ordering a departmental enquiry and proceedings dated 21.09.2023 calling for remarks/comments on the enquiry, alleged to have been issued without following procedure and without appointing any Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer, invoking Article 21 and the judgments in Stanzen Toyotetsu Pvt. Ltd. vs. Girish V. and M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679; interim applications under Section 151 CPC sought stay of the enquiry proceedings and suspension of the suspension order. Before judgment, the petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the matter had been settled before the Lok Adalat on 14.12.2024. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. closed the Writ Petition on 07.02.2025 with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications stood closed. The merits of the challenge were not adjudicated.

¶1

[^3s04 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶6

wRIT PETITION NO: 29830 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

P.Naresh, s/o Venkatramulu, aged 30^{years, R.T.C Conductor(Under} Suspicion), Narayanpet Depot,^{Narayanpet District.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Telangana State^{Road Transport Corporation,rep. by the Managing} Director, Musheerabad,^HYderabad.

¶12

The Telingana State Road^{Transport Corporation, rep. by the Dept Manager,} Narayanpet Depot, Narayanpet^District.

¶13

Sri Nazir Shaik, Superintendent^{(Traffic)-cum- Enquiry Officer, Presently} working at Karimnagar DePot.

¶14

Sri Rairji, Assistanl ltrlanager^{(Traffic)-cum Enquiry Officer,Mahabubnagar} Depot.

¶15

Superintendent^{(Traffic), T.S. R.T.C. NarayanpetDepot.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articte 226^o'f lhe^{Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more^{particularlyone in the natureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring the^{order in P11197/(03)/2023-NRPT, dated} 07.07.2023 issued by the^{2nd respondent ordering Departmental Enquiry against} the petitioner and the^{proceedings No Pl /197/(03)/2023-NRPT'dated} 21 .O9.2023 calling for^{remarks/comments, if any on the EnquiryProceedings,} without following any^procedure and^{without appointing any Enquiry Officerand} Presenting officer, as illegal, arbitrary^{and in violation of the principlesof natural} justice and Article 21 of the constitution of lndia and also the^{Judgment of the} Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia^{reportedin Ir/lS STANZEN TOYOTETSU P'LTD} VS. GIRISH V and OTHERS^{coupled with M.PAUL ANTHONYV. BHARAT}

¶18

i i F a. i f

¶19

GOLD IMINESi t^-D (1999) 3 SCC 679 and consequently, tl) sei aside the orders of the respon,l :r t

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF zC?-:t

¶21

Petition Lrnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcr.tmstances stated in the affidavit fi ed in support of the petition, the High Corrr nray be pleased to suspend the lF eretion of the order of 2nd respondent ir proceedings in P 111971(03',1202:,-N IRPT, dated 07.O7.2023 ptacing ilre l)etitioner under suspension perrdincp disposal of the writ petition

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 202ti.

¶23

Petiticn :r de. Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcr.mstances stated in the affidavil f l,rd n support of the petition, the High Cor- rt m ay be pleased to stay proceedin3: in P11197/(03)12023 -NRpT, dated 07.O' 20:t3 issued by the 2nd responde r t ordering Departmental Enquiry against the pi:titioner and the proceedings, nl,r P l/197i(03)/2023-NRPT, dated 21 Oi) 2O:.'3 cailing for remarks/cornntr:"Ls, if any on the Enquiry Proceedings perrc inrl disposal of the writ petition

¶24

Counsel for the F'etittioner: SRl. P. VENKATESWAR RAO

¶25

Counsel for thc Flespondent Nos. 1to4 : Gp FOR TRANSPC)RT

¶26

Counsel for thr: l?espondent No.5: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS. $C FOR TSRTC The Court madr-. ihe following: ORDER

¶27

I It i : I I

¶28

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO -} I P N o.29 3 2 z

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Sri P.^{VenkateswarRao' learned counselfor the petitioner} informed^{this Court that the matterhas been settled before} the Lok^{Adalat on 14'12'2024and' therefore'no furtherordersare} necessarY^{in this Writ Petition'}

¶31

In' view^{of the above submission'the Writ Petitionis closed'} There^{shall be no order as to costs}

¶32

any, Pending^{inthis Writ} Miscellaneous^{aPPlications'if} , Petition,^{shall standclosed'}

¶33

SD/.^{L. LAKSHMI BABU} ASSIS^{TANT REGISTRAR}

¶34

,/TRUE^COPYI/

¶35

SECTION^OFFICER e IOPUC] To, for the^{Stateof Telangana'} i : 33J%'3i^{Eq"-'+SJ533$I [tR} "11"f "^{S,[tft3"t\tYi'to'sRrNrvAs'sc FoR r} SRTC TOPUCJ i. ro^{CD CoPiesCoPies}

¶36

i. r*o^{CD CoPiesCoPies} BM GJP

HIGH CO{.'RT

DATED:0'i't0212025

ORDER

WP.No.29ti:?O ot 2023

¶42