G. Ramakrishna Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 33535 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Ramakrishna, S/o. late G. Govind, age 39 years, Occ Conductor, E. No. 152687 , No. 6-211, Kanchiraopally, Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Regional [\4anager, TGSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar 3. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Bus Depot, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶13

The Enquiry Officer/Asst. ft/anager (T), 0/o. TGSRTC, Bus Depot, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitution} of^{Indiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of suspension from service issued vide Proc. No. P2l95(93)12O25-GDWL, dated 13.10.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia^and consequently the petitioner^pray this Hon'ble Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of^justice and fair^play.

¶16

I ii l II

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 202:5

¶18

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 allow the petitioner to discharge his duties in the 3'd respondent depot by suspending the order of suspension from service issued in Proc. No. P2|05(93)12O25-GDWL, dated 13.10.2A25^'pending disposal of the above writ petit on in the interest of^justice and fair^play.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD

¶20

Counsel for thr: Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court madie the following: ORDER

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.33535 of 2O25

¶24

Dated 9th January, 2026.

Between:

G. Ramakrishna

. .. Petitioner

AND

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and three others.

¶30

Respondents

¶31

ORDER;

¶32

. This writ Petition is flled seeking to declare and set aside the impugned order of suspension vide Proc.No.P2 /9s(931 /2025-GDWL dated 13.Lo.2025 issued by respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2r of the Constitution of India, and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

¶33

Heard Sri '. Narasimha Goud, learned counser appearing for the petitioner, and Sri R. Anurag, Iearned Standing'counsel for

¶34

2

¶35

PK, J W.P.No.33535 of 2025

¶36

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of the responlents.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the year 2011, after unde rgoing due process of selection, and his services were later regularize,l in the year 2014, and since then, he has been continuou sly discharging his duties under the control of respondent No.3 herein. On 11.O9.2025, rvhile the petitioner was performing his duties on inter-state bus service on route Kurnool to leeja, a surprise check was conducted at Stage No.lo-Shanthinagar, and the checking officials found that all the (57) passengers were travelling with valid tickets, except a couple, wherein, the husband was issued with ticket No.205/(iA12013 of Rs.8O/- but the wife was issued with a Zero Ticket No.2O5/6 AO2l4. It is submitted that the^{petitioner was} conducting the bus traveling from Kurnool, which falls in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and thus, the said Zero Ticket was inadvertently issued due to the improper functioning of the Ticket Issuing Machine. However', without considering the same and without appreciating that the petitioner had issued (56) valid tickets, the checking officials forward,:d the check documents to respondent No.3, recommending keeping the petitioner under depot spare. In pursuance of the same,

¶38

3

¶39

PK, J W.P.No.33535 of 2025

¶40

the petitioner was kept under depot spare from 12.O9.2025. Subsequently, the same was revoked vide order dated 25.09.2025, instructing the petitioner to approach respondent No.2.

¶41

It is further submitted that respondent No.3 had issued a

¶42

Charge Sheet dated L8.O9.2O25, leveling three charges against the petitioner, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.09.2025, stating that the issue of Zero Ticket arose due to the malfunctioning of the Ticket Issuing Machine. However, without considering the said explanation of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was conducted by respondent No.4 in gross violation of principles of natural justice, since two witnesses^. were examined behind the petitioner's back and after recording his statement. It is further submitted that after the issuance of Charge Sheet dated I8.O9.2O25 and submission of his explanation dated 24.09.2025, without any^justihable ground or reason, the petitioner was illegally placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 13.10.2025, and consequently, he was also lifted from the depot spare, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the established practice of the respondent Corporation, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned suspension order

¶43

4

¶44

PK, J iV.P.No.33535 of 2025

¶45

dated 13. .0.2025 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner i nto service.

¶46

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the responden ts submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in respondent Corporation on contract basis, w.e.f., 14.O2.2OlL, and his services were regularized, r,i,.e.f., 01.05.2014. However, he was removed from service, u'.e.f., 08.01.2O16, in view of his invol.rement in serious cash and ticket irregularities, but on considerirrg his mercy petition, he was later reinstated into service on 29.O5.2O[7 as a fresh Conductor. Thereafter, he was once again removed from service in view of his absenteeism but later reinstated. As such, the petitioner is bereft of a clean service record. It is further sr-ibmitted that while the petitioner was discharging his duties on route l.urnool-leeja-Gadwal, on 11.09.2025, at Stage No.lO (Shanthinagar), a surprise check was conducted, wherein, it was found that the petitioner had collected Rs.2O /- from a lady^passenger, who bozrded the bus at Kurnool, and failed to issue a proper ticket, though the said individual was entitled to travel up to Gadwal under the Maralaxmi Zero Fare travel scheme only within the limits of Telangana State. However, the petitioner failed to issue a fare paid ticket tc the said lady passenger up to the border of the State and

¶47

5

¶48

PK, J w.P.No.33535 of 2025

¶49

resorted to ticket irregularities. As such, basing on the serious allegations, he was initially kept under depot spare and a^Charge Sheet dated 18.O9.2025 was issued against him.^{Thereafter,only a} preliminary enquiry was conducted in compliance with the^principles of natural^justice, and to elicit the^veracity of^{the charges, a detailed} enquiry is necessary. As such, to conduct a^{fair enquiry and to avoid} any tampering with evidence, the^{petitioner was rightly placed under} suspension vide order dated 13.1O.2025. Subsequently,^{vide orders} dated 13.1i .2025, the Assistant Manager^{(T-Enquiry)was appointed} to conduct a domestic enquiry, which is^yet to^{be conducted.} Therefore, the impugned suspension order^need not^{be interferedwith} by this Court. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the^{presentwrit petition.}

¶50

6.^. In reply, learned counsel for the^{petitioner submitsthat in} identical circumstances, another Conductor, Mr. K. Ramesh,^{who was} found involved in similar cash and ticket irregularities, as^alleged against the petitioner, was also issued with a Charge^{Sheet,and he} was only kept under depot spare, which was later revoked^{and he was} allowed to discharge his duties, without ever^placing him^under suspension. Hence, the action of respondent No.3 in^{placing the} petitioner under suspension is clearly discriminatory, violating Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the Constitution of India. [t is further

--"----

6

I I i ,I I iI i I

PK, J W.P.No.3353S of 2025

¶55

submitted that rhe petirioner was issued with the charge sheet on 18'09'2025, and the enquiry officer co.ductecr the enquiry on 06'lo'202s and oz.ro.2025, i.e., after the issuance of charge Sheet, and subnritted his report dated 0g.10.2025 to respondent No.3. Thereafter, vide covering letter dated 2r.ro.2o2s, respondent No.3 forwarded the said enquiry report and called for an explanation from the petiticner. Hence, it is clear that the enquiry so conducted is a departme.tal enquiry rather than a mere preriminary enquiry, as alleged by the respondents herein. As such, the respondents canno[ resort to ,.he impugned suspension after conducting a departmental enquiry. 'lherefore, it is once again prayed to set aside the impugned suspension order dated 13.lO.2O2S.

¶56

7 ' Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respe<:tive parties and on perusar of the record, it is evident that the petiticner was placed under suspension on the ailegation of cash and ticker irregularities said to have been committed on rr.og.2o2s, for which a charge sheet dated rg.og.2o25 has been issued. The petitioner primarily contends that the impugned suspension is unwarranted as a detailed domestic enquiry was aiready conducted and concluded. However, according to the respondents, the enquiry

¶57

7

¶58

PK, J W.P.No.33535 of 2O25

¶59

\

¶60

t

¶61

so conducted was only a preliminary one and a detailed enquiry is yet to be conducted against the petitioner.

¶62

Admittedly, the present writ petition is qonfined only to the validity of the petitioner's suspension order. Hence, the question of adjudicating the manner in which the enquiry has been conducted does not arise and is left open.

¶63

It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has asserted a specific instance of another Conductor, one Mr. K. Ramesh, who was also alleged to have been involved in similar cash and ticket irregularities and was issued with a Charge Sheet with similar allegations as that of the petitioner herein. In the said case, the disciplinary authority had initially placed him under depot spare and later permitted him to discharge his duties, without resorting to suspension. However, in the instant case, in pursuance of the surprise check, the petitioner was initially placed under depot spare, w.e.f., L2.O9.2O25, and was subsequently, placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 13.10.2025. Hence, it is clear that the action of respondent No.3 in placing the petitioner, who is similarly situated as the aforesaid individual, under suspension amounts to discriminatory treatment.

¶64

PK, J W.P.No.33535 of 2025

¶65

i I

¶66

8

¶67

In vie rv of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugred order of suspension dated 13.1O.2025 in unsustainable on the grorrnd of discrimination alone, and it is therefore, liable to be sct asidc.

¶68

1 1. Acccrdingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of suspension vide Proc.No.P2/95(931 /2O25-GDWL dated L3.1O.2025 issued by respondent No.3 and the respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service. It is once again marle clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on tire merits; or demerits of the charges leveled against the petitioner or on the validity of the enquiry proceedings.

¶69

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition,

¶70

shall star.d closed. No costs.

¶71

/TRUE COPY//

¶72

SD/-M. OSMAN ALI^BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

¶73

SECTION OFFICER

¶74

To,