Telangana High Court
V. Venkataiah vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.8568 of 2017
Dated 26th March, 2026.
Between:
V. Venkataiah
... Petitioner
AND
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and three others.
... Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the order of removal from service dated 24.07.2014 and also the 2nd respondent proceeding dated 29.11.2014 in so far as deferring annual increment for a period of (2) years with cumulative effect besides treating the period as not on duty as arbitrary, unjust in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently I pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the deferred increment duly treating the removal period as on duty along with all consequential benefits..."2
PK, J W.P.No.8568 of 2017
2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the services of respondent Corporation as a Driver on 24.05.2010, and his services were subsequently regularized w.e.f., 01.09.2013. While so, , the petitioner was erroneously placed under suspension and issued with a Charge Sheet dated 08.08.2014, alleging that on 30.04.2014 at about 09-00 hours, he had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed causing the fatal accident of one pedestrian, who had suddenly come onto the road from the left side. However, the petitioner had immediately taken the vehicle to the right side to evade the collision, but the pedestrian himself invited the accident by coming in contact with the front left-side bumper of the vehicle, resulting in his demise. In response to the Charge Sheet, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.05.2014, denying the charge, while explaining the above facts. However, without considering the same, an enquiry was ordered, wherein, the Assistant Manager (Traffic) deposed that the pedestrian was crossing the road suddenly duly talking on the cellphone, and it was his negligence that resulted in the collision. It is further submitted that the Service Conductor deposed that he had come 3 PK, J W.P.No.8568 of 2017 to know about the accident when the petitioner stopped the bus suddenly. Further, the petitioner, in his defense, categorically deposed that the pedestrian was talking on the cellphone and suddenly jumped from the road divider and a lorry, passing by, had hit him, resulting in the accident. However, without considering the same, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge solely basing on the preliminary enquiry report and the Accident Committee Report, which was never furnished to the petitioner. As such, the action of the enquiry officer is wholly illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. However, without considering the facts of the case, the petitioner was erroneously removed from service vide proceedings dated 24.07.2014 issued by respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and on considering the same, the petitioner was granted reinstatement vide proceedings dated 29.11.2014. However, the punishment earlier imposed was modified to that of postponement of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. It is further submitted that a criminal case vide C.C.No.684 of 2014 was registered against the petitioner, which ended in his acquittal vide judgment dated 21.04.2015. As such, it is clear that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner herein for the said 4 PK, J W.P.No.8568 of 2017 accident. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the punishment order with all consequential benefits.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on filing of a counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner, while performing his duties on 30.04.2014 with bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9241, had caused an accident at Ragannaguda, at about 09- 00 hours, resulting in the demise of a pedestrian. As such, a criminal case was registered against him vide FIR No.363/2014 on the file of the Vanasthalipuram Police Station, dated 30.04.2014. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority of the respondent Corporation, while placing the petitioner under suspension, issued a Charge Sheet dated 08.05.2014, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation. However, having been dissatisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered, and the after conducting a detailed enquiry, by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 07.07.2014, holding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the said enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner for his objections/comments. However, no fresh valid points were raised by the petitioner. As such, basing on the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 16.07.2014, calling for his explanation as to why the punishment of removal from service shall not 5 PK, J W.P.No.8568 of 2017 be imposed upon him. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.07.2014. The disciplinary authority has gone through the entire material evidence and the explanations submitted by the petitioner, and imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 24.07.2014, which is just and proper for the proven misconduct.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, which was rejected vide proceedings No.ST/19(207)/2014-DVM-HYD dated 14.08.2014. Subsequently, the review petition was also considered and rejected by the concerned authority vide proceedings No.PA/586(253)/2014-HR dated 19.09.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before respondent No.3 on 10.10.2014, and the authority, despite holding that the petitioner was responsible for the accident, had taken a lenient view in the matter since it was the first removal in his service, and purely on humanitarian grounds, has granted reinstatement, by modifying the punishment to that of postponement of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effective vide proceedings dated 29.11.2014, besides treating the period of removal as not on duty for all purposes. It is further submitted that the acquittal in criminal case has no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings, which conclusively ended with the 6 PK, J W.P.No.8568 of 2017 imposition of the punishment much before his acquittal. Further, the petitioner had approached this Court without first availing the alternative remedy of raising an Industrial Dispute before the competent Labour Court. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was charged with the allegation of driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, resulting in collision with a pedestrian, causing his demise. A detailed departmental enquiry was conducted, wherein, the charge leveled against the petitioner was proved beyond reasonable doubt, and basing on the enquiry report, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 24.07.2014. The respondents have specifically asserted that the petitioner had earlier preferred appeal and review against the removal proceedings, which were considered and rejected vide proceedings No.ST/19(207)/2014-DVM-HYD dated 14.08.2014 and No.PA/586(253)/2014-HR dated 19.09.2014, respectively. It is upon consideration of the mercy petition filed by the petitioner dated 10.10.2014, that respondent No.3 has a taken a lenient view on humanitarian ground and granted reinstatement. However the 7 PK, J W.P.No.8568 of 2017 punishment of removal was modified to that of postponement of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 29.11.2014, besides treatment of the removal period as not on duty for all purposes.
7. It is trite law that the scope of judicial review in matters concerning disciplinary proceedings and punishments is highly limited and the Courts usually refrain to interfere in such matters, unless procedural infirmities or violation of the fundamental rights are manifestly found or if the punishment so imposed upon the delinquent is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Union of India and others v. Subrata Nath 1, had reiterated the scope of judicial review/interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following is a relevant excerpt of the said decision.
"24. To sum up the legal position, being fact-finding authorities, both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect 1 (2024) 20 SCC 402 8 PK, J W.P.No.8568 of 2017 of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran [Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554] . If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the disciplinary/appellate authority may be called upon to reconsider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor.
...
30. We are unable to commend the approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. There was no good reason for the High Court to have entered the domain of the factual aspects relating to the evidence recorded before the inquiry officer. This was clearly an attempt to reappreciate the evidence which is impermissible in exercise of powers of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, fell into an error by setting aside the order of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority."
8. In the instant case, the charge leveled against the petitioner was conclusively held proved, resulting in his removal from service. However, the revisional authority, while dealing with his mercy petition, has already taken a lenient view, on humanitarian grounds, and granted reinstatement, by modifying the punishment to that of postponement of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of removal as not on duty for all purposes. 9
PK, J W.P.No.8568 of 2017
9. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to take further lenience in the matter and interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 29.11.2024 issued by respondent No.3. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 26.03.2026.
GSP