Ch. Babu, R.R.Dist vs The Depot Manager, R.R.Dist

Telangana High Court

Ch. Babu, R.R.Dist vs The Depot Manager, R.R.Dist on 25 March, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
                   HYDERABAD

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


          Dated this the 25th day of March 2026

                WRIT PETITION No.19236 of 2008

Between:

Ch. Babu                                               .. Petitioner

                                 AND

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, H.C.U. Depot, Gachibowli, R.R.
District.
                                                      .. Respondent
ORDER:

The present Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned award passed by the Labor Court-I, Hyderabad, on 20.09.2006 in I.D. No. 231 of 2004 in holding the domestic enquiry as valid, as well as impugned award dated 15.06.2007 in I.D. No. 231 of 2004 in upholding the order of removal from service as valid. Consequently, direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits including back wages.

2. Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondent. 2

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Petitioner joined the services of the respondent's Corporation as conductor on 19.02.1986. Subsequently, his services were also regularized w.e.f. 28.11.1986. While so, he was removed from service by the respondent vide order dated 23.03.2003. After rejection of appeal and review vide respective orders dated 19.05.2003 & 22.12.2003, the petitioner raised I.D. No.231 of 2004 before the Labor Court-I, Hyderabad explaining the following facts.

(b) While the petitioner was conducting the bus service on 09.06.2002 on route No. 216 from Lingampally to Koti ex-stages 6 to 20, a check was affected at stage No.18 and issued memo alleging certain irregularities. In the said charge memo, the petitioner was asked to submit explanation within seven days which expires on 16.06.2002. But in the mean while, the respondent has suspended the petitioner from service on 13.06.2002 and issued chargesheet dated 13.06.2002 alleging the following charge:

CHARGE:

Checked your bus found one passenger traveling with ticket No.027/944831 of Rs.7/- denomination who boarded the bus at Lingampally and bound for Mehdipatnam cross Roads, ex-stage 6-16, but in your SR 3 Rs.7/- opening No. 027/944848 of Rs.7/- denomination. The above Rs.7/- denomination ticket No. 027/944831 issued previous day ticket. Hence taken TPT No.027/944877 of Rs.7/- denomination. In this connection, TTIs of HES/HYD confiscated your SR and issued new SR on reissue charge, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulations 28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.

(c) For the above charge, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 14.06.2002 to furnish him the relevant documents so as to submit explanation to the chargesheet.

But without considering the above reasonable request, the respondent has ordered an enquiry. On receiving the enquiry notice, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 24.08.2002 to the enquiry officer to furnish him with relevant documents. Though the enquiry officer received the letter, but he did not furnish the documents. Apart from that, another letter dated 12.11.2002 was also submitted to the enquiry officer to summon the (2) checking officials as well as the passengers in question. Though the enquiry officer received the said letter, but not considered. As such, he submitted representations on 07.12.2002 & 25.12.2002 respectively. However, without considering the above, the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry ex parte.

     (d)    Based      on   the    ex parte       enquiry    report,   the

respondent issued        show      cause     notice    of   removal and

thereafter he passed the order of removal from service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry straight away came to the conclusion that charge levelled against him is proved and proposed the punishment of removal. Thereafter, the petitioner raised the dispute. At the time of raising the dispute U/s. 2-A(2) petition dated 12.12.2004, the petitioner filed list of documents enclosing (20) documents. In view of the above denial of reasonable opportunity in the enquiry as well as other proceedings, the petitioner requested the Tribunal to hold the enquiry as invalid. But the Tribunal without considering the pleading as well as documents filed along with petition, has held the enquiry as valid vide order dated 20.09.2006, and subsequently, the impugned award is passed upholding the punishment of removal in an arbitrary manner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Tribunal has passed the impugned orders contrary to the material available on record and the probabilities of the case. 5 Though the Tribunal marked the documents (10) out of (20) documents filed by the petitioner, those documents were not at all considered while passing the impugned award in upholding the order of removal and also not considered while deciding the domestic enquiry as preliminary issue. Therefore, the court below committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal ought to have considered that right from beginning the petitioner has been requesting that he did not issue the ticket in question and the statement said to have been written by the passengers in Hindi was also not known to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the statement so collected was also not in conformity with the checking rules prescribed in MTD 267 as it should contain full details of the passengers said to have been found ticketless along with the two independent witnesses with their full details. The Tribunal ought to have considered due to non- considering the representation submitted to the enquiry officer as well as to the respondent, the petitioner could not attend the enquiry and thereby he was deprived with the reasonable opportunity to put fourth his case. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

7. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner is bereft of any clean record of service. He was placed under suspension on 30.09.1987 and was removed on 02.01.1988. He was awarded the punishment of deferment of his increment for 3 months without cumulative effect on 01.03.2000. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 09.06.2002 but he had not submitted his explanation and informed that he would submit explanation at a later date. In view of the seriousness of the case, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was issued with a chargesheet. When the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.08.2002 for supply of certain documents, the documents sought for, were available in the case and the same were handed over to the petitioner on the same day.

8. Learned Standing counsel further submits that the enquiry officer sent two letters to the petitioner by RPAD to attend the enquiry on 28.08.2002 and 16.11.2002 respectively. But he failed to attend the enquiry even after receipt of the documents such as way bill dated 09.06.2002. As the petitioner was dodging to attend the enquiry on some reason or other, the enquiry officer sent an enquiry notice on 7 16.12.2002 to attend the enquiry on 30.12.2002 otherwise ex parte enquiry would be conducted. As no acknowledgement was received, the letter was displayed on the notice board. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry on 30.12.2002. Hence an ex parte enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted holding the charge levelled against the petitioner proved.

9. Learned Standing counsel further submits that the disciplinary authority after following the procedure, removed the petitioner from service on 22.03.2003. The appeal and review petitions were also rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner raised a dispute I.D.No.231/2004 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. By its award dated 15.06.2007 the learned Labour court confirmed the removal order. The learned Labour court found that from the evidence of the checking officials and the ticket found with the passenger, it is clear that the petitioner had reissued the ticket bearing No.027/944831 for a sum of Rs.7/- and appropriated the amount for himself and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and dismissed the claim petition. There are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

10. The present case at hand is that, the petitioner is found committed serious misconduct of cash and ticket irregularity. Ticket bearing No.027/944831 of Rs.7/- denomination found with the passenger, who boarded the bus at Lingampally and bounded for Mehdipatnam "X" roads. The allegation of the respondent is that the ticket issued by the petitioner is of the previous day. The petitioner failed to submit any explanation to the chargesheet though he acknowledged the receipt of the charge sheet. Per contra, the contention of the petitioner is that he submitted a letter dated 14.06.2002 to furnish him the relevant documents so as to submit explanation to the chargesheet. But without considering the above reasonable request, the respondent had ordered an enquiry. On receiving the enquiry notice, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 24.08.2002 to the enquiry officer to furnish him with relevant documents. Though the enquiry officer received the letter, but he did not furnish the documents. Apart from that, another letter dated 12.11.2002 was also submitted to the enquiry officer to summon the two checking officials as well as the passengers in question. Though the enquiry officer received the said letter, but not considered. As such, he submitted 9 representations on 07.12.2002 & 25.12.2002 respectively. To fortify his contention, the petitioner has filed all the above representations before the Tribunal and the same were marked as exhibits. However, without considering the above, the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry ex parte.

11. Though the respondent contended that the enquiry officer sent two letters to the petitioner by RPAD to attend the enquiry on 28.08.2002 and 16.11.2002 respectively. But he failed to attend the enquiry even after receipt of the documents such as way bill dated 09.06.2002. As the petitioner was dodging to attend the enquiry on some reason or other, the enquiry officer sent an enquiry notice on 16.12.2002 to attend the enquiry on 30.12.2002 otherwise ex parte enquiry would be conducted. As no acknowledgement was received, the letter was displayed on the notice board. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry on 30.12.2002. Hence an ex parte enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted holding the charge levelled against the petitioner proved. But, no such documents were exhibited before the Tribunal. As such, the contention of the respondent is negatived.

12. In view of the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service by the respondent vide order dated 23.03.2003. After rejection of appeal and review vide respective orders dated 19.05.2003 & 22.12.2003, the petitioner raised I.D. No.231 of 2004 before the Labor Court-I, Hyderabad. While approaching the Labour Court, the petitioner enclosed 20 documents in order to show as to how the respondent has deprived the petitioner to reasonable opportunity right from suspension from service to conducting ex parte enquiry. The Labour Court confirmed the order of removal.

13. A perusal of the Labour Court's Award shows that there is no discussion with regard to the documents filed by the petitioner for his grievance. The Labour Court also simply confirmed the Appellate and Revisional order without assigning any reasons. However, issuance of a ticket Rs.7/- denomination of the previous day to one of the passengers, amounts to cash and ticket irregularity. For such a minor irregularity, dismissal from service is too harsh a punishment, and this justifies the Court's intervention.

14. The re-issuing of the previous day's ticket and upon proving the charges, the department would have imposed other than the removal from service, which comes under 11 harsh punishment. There are certain guidelines while imposing the harsh punishment against the employees. Though it is a serious misconduct of the petitioner, it has to be proved in a proper manner. In the present case, the petitioner submitted documents showing his grievance against the departmental proceedings, but the Labour Court did not consider it in any angle. Without considering the said documents and the analysis of the appeal and revisional orders, simply confirmed the said order, and the same is not tenable. As such, the Award passed by the Labor Court-I, Hyderabad, on 15.06.2007 in I.D. No. 231 of 2004 in upholding the order of removal from service as valid, is set aside.

15. It is the case of 2008 and the relief sought by the petitioner is reinstatement and at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner was aged 44 years. At this juncture, reinstatement of the petitioner does not arise. However, a direction to the respondent authorities to pay 25% of the back wages only to the petitioner from the date of his removal till his date of superannuation, would meet the ends of justice.

16. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to pay 25% 12 of the back wages only to the petitioner from the date of his remo8val till his date of superannuation in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 25.03.2026 BDR