Partly allowed¶57

K. Gangadar v. The Presiding Officer , Labour Court-Ii and another

Telangana HC10 Jul 2025WP/39146/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against removal from service; court finds punishment disproportionate; orders reinstatement as fresh conductor without continuity or back wages.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement as fresh conductor subject to medical fitness, without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits, to be completed within 4 weeks. ¶57

K. Gangadar Vs The Presiding Officer , Labour… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE^{TENTH DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRSJUSTICESUREPALLINANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 39146 OF 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Gangadar. S/o.^{Ramulu, Agedabout 43..years,OccConductor} '^{E 676822 '} i'ii.;;;1;;-ii Depot,^{R/o H ijo. o-gelz' Viilase MosraMandal Varmi' Dist} Nizamabad^- 503206.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 ThePresidingOfficer,LabourCourt-llandanother'Chandravihar'Hyderabad' 2 The Depot Manager,^{TSRTC, Nizamabad- ll Depot' Nizamabad'Nizamabad} DiSt,

¶12

..,RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order^{or direction moreparticularly one in the natureof} WRlToFMANDAIMUSdeclaringtheinactionofthe2ndRespondentinremoved the^{petitionerfrom service vide proceedings No 02/95/DS(1)/ 19-NZB-2dated} l4to3t2ollandConsequentialorderorthelstRespondentinlDNo.2ot2020 daledOTll3t2022whtchwasissuedGoRt.No.g2datedo4l04l2022passedNlL award as illegal^{arbitrary, unjustd isproportionate and set aside the sameand} consequently direct^{the respondentsto reinstatethe petitioner into serviceswith} continuity of service^{andaward all consequentialbenefits and attendant benefits} with full back wages.

¶14

¶15

IA NO:^'f OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in t1e circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High^()ourt may be pleased to Suspend Operation of the impugned proceedings N o 02/9SiDS(1)/19-NZB-2 dated 141031201 B ;rnd consequential order or the^'lst Rr.spondent in lD No. 2 of 2020 dated 0710312022 which was issued GO Rt. No. l2 daled 0410412022 t'y reinstate the petitioner into the service, pending dis rosal of the main Writ Petition, in the interest of lustice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VENKATESWERLLU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR LABOUR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.SRUSHMAN Rl:DDY, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.39146 oF 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard Sri K.Venkateswerllu, learned^counsel appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner, learned} Assistant Government Pleader for Labour^appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri^N.Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for^{TSRTCappearing} on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶25

2 The oetitaon er aIlrtroached this^Court seekin^dthe Draver as under:

¶26

"....to issue a writ, order or direction^more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of^the 2nd Respondent in removing the^{petitionerfrom} service vide^proceedings No. O2/95/DS(|)/19-NZB2, dated 14-03-2018 and consequential order^of the 1't Respondent in ID No.2 of 2020,^dated 07-03-2022, which was issued^{G.O.Rt.No.92,} dated 04-04-2022^passed NIL award^{as illegal} arbitrary, unjust disproportionate^{and set aside the} same and consequently direct the^{respondents to} reinstate the petitioner into services^with continuity of service and award all^{consequential}

¶27

¶28

SN,J W.P.No.39146 2022

¶29

benefits and attendant benefits with full back wages and pass...

¶30

The case of the petitioner, in brie., is that the petitioner, who was a conductor in TSRTC, was removed from service on 14.03.2019 after being founc guitty of cash and ticket irregularities during duty. A domes,ic enquiry was conducted, and the charges were proved. T1e petitioner,s appeal was rejected. SubsequenUy, the petiti )ner raised an industrial Cispute vide I.D.No.2 of 2O2O I efore the 1sr respondent-Labour Court, however, the labour Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶31

Perused the record.

¶32

(A) Th rel va t tio of h r )rder dated 1 o1 se tnw N 30772 f 20Lo, rs extracted hereunder:

¶33

"6. This Court having considered the submissions made by the parties and the gravity o, the charge levelled against the petitioner, is of the considered view that the punlshment of removal imposed by the respondent-Corporation s very disproportionate and the Labour Cou-t ought to

¶34

¶35

SN,J w.P.No.39146 2O22

¶36

ffi

¶37

.- .. / . :,-/

¶38

have examined the case of the petitioner and interfered with the punishment of removal by applying the proportionality theory and at least, the Labour Court ought to have directed the respondent- Corporation to .reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor. Since the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the respondentCorporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor.

¶39

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor, subject to medical fitness, without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

Discussion and Conclusion

¶41

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that except the incident in question, there are no such other incidents in the entire service career of the petitioner and Further submitted that the ticket report shows that 19 tickets were issued and 14 tickets were not

¶42

¶43

S N,J W.P.N0.39146 2022

¶44

accounted for. Learned counsel appearing o r behalf of the petitioner further submitted that on 07.11.2019 while performing his duty, the petitioner issued ti( kets to all the passengers but his TIM fell down and as a r:sult of which, ticket print did not come out, therefore, the petitioner had issued white pieces of papers duly noting don n the fare and destination particulars and there was no malt fide intention on the part of the petitioner and further s Lrbmitted that there is no statement of the TTIS stating hat they had checked the machine and found it to b: in working condition. l-earned counsel appearing on lehalf of the petitioner further submits that the subject rnatter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 03.10.2015 passed by this Court, in W.P.No.3C 772 of 2010.

¶45

Learned Standino Counsel aooearino on be alf of the 2"d resoondent-Corooration ontended that the disciplinarv authoritv imposed punishment of removal fnr +]r e rov nmr ct and +h L r Court had rio htlv dismissed the I.D.No.2 of 2O2O. therefore. the ward im n oes not w rra nt a : rferen ce.

¶46

¶47

SN,J W.P.No.39145 2022

¶48

¶49

This Court having considered the submissions made by the^parties and also the ludgment of this Court dated 03.10.2018 passed in W.P.No.30772 of 2010 (referred to and extracted above) and further taking note of a significant fact as borne on record that there is no statement of the TTIS stating that they had checked the machine and found it to be in working condition and duly considering the^gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioner, opines that the punishment of removal imposed by the respondentCorporation is very d isproportionate and the Labour Court ought to have examined the case of the petitioner and interfered with the punishment of removal by applying the proportionality theory and at least, the Labour Court ought to have directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor. Since, the punishment of removal is shockingly d isproportionate; this Court feels that ends of^justice would be met if the respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor.

¶50

L Takinq into nsideratio n

5N,j

W.P.No.39146 2022

(a) The aforesaid facts and ctrc,tmstances of the case,

¶56

(b) The submissions made by the learned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner and the learning Assistant Government pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of the responderrt No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC aopearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶57

The Writ petition is disposed of drrecting the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor, subject to medical fitness, without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits. .rhe entire process should be completed within a per od of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶58

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

¶59

closed.

¶60

SD/.MOHD.^ISMAIL I)EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62