Telangana High Court
M.Nageswar Rao vs The Tsrtc., Rep By Its Joint Md And 3 ... on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
WP No.5871 of 2016
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.5871 of 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus
to declare the impugned proceedings No.01/2(10)/99-MDR, dated
29.09.1999, and consequential impugned proceedings No. Steno/19(1)/2001-
DY.CTM:KMM, dated 27.01.2001, and proceedings No.Steno/19(32)/2001-
RM:KMM, dated 30.04.2001 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14
& 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently, by setting aside the
impugned proceedings.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner while working as a
driver on vehicle No.AP-10Z-691 on route Madira to Tiruvuru on
14.08.1999 had caused an accident, due to which, a boy sustained severe
injuries and died while undergoing treatment at Hospital. As a sequel
thereto, the 4th respondent issued chargesheet dated 07.09.1999 for his
alleged rash and negligent driving, for which, he submitted an explanation
on 20.09.1999 denying all those allegations. The 4th respondent, without
conducting proper enquiry and without issuing show-cause notice, issued
proceedings dated 29.09.1999 imposing punishment postponing one annual
increment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the
3rd respondent, who in turn rejected his appeal vide proceedings dated
2 RRN,J
WP No.5871 of 2016
27.01.2001. On review being filed by the petitioner, the same was dismissed
by the 2nd respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 30.04.2001.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent Corporation denying all
the averments in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition stating
that the accident was on account of anticipation and rash and negligent
driving of the petitioner and that the charge leveled against the petitioner
proved, for which, penalty of postponing of annual increment for a period of
one year which shall have effect on future increment was imposed on the
petitioner vide proceedings No.01/2(10)/99-MDR, dated 29.09.1999 and
aggrieved by the same the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Dy. Chief
Traffic Manager, Khammam, against the proceedings of Depot Manager,
Madhira. The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager has opined that the irregularities
committed by the petitioner are grave and serious in nature, and the Depot
Manager was justified in punishing the petitioner. The procedure has been
followed by the 2nd respondent while issuing the impugned proceedings
dated 30.04.2001. He submits that the petitioner has not filed appeal within a
period of two months from the date of proceedings of the 4th respondent and
filed the same after lapse of more than two months. Accordingly, prayed to
dismiss the Writ Petition.
3 RRN,J
WP No.5871 of 2016
4. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.
Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
postponement of the increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty as
per the Regulations of the Corporation and the same shall be preceded by
disciplinary proceedings and show-cause notice. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kulvant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab1. He also submits that
criminal case registered against the writ petitioner was ended in acquittal in
vide judgment in CC No.190 of 1999 dated 24.01.2002 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madira, Khammam District.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents
Corporation, while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit submits
that there is no whisper in the entire affidavit about the delay in preferring
the present petition after lapse of more than 15 years. He also submits that
such an inordinate delay cannot be condoned under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and the petitioner ought to have filed the appeal within
a reasonable period preferably within a period of two months from the date
of impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent and sought for dismissal of
[1999 Suppl.(1)SCC 504]
4 RRN,J
WP No.5871 of 2016
the writ petition. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments
of this Court in; (i) W.A.No.1079 of 2014, dated 30.07.2014; (ii)
W.A.Nos.1660 of 2018 & 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2021;
7. In this case, it is to be seen that due to the alleged rash and negligent
driving of the petitioner in the year 1999, punishment was imposed by the 4th
respondent vide proceedings dated 29.09.1999. Aggrieved by the said
proceedings, the petitioner filed appeal before the 3rd respondent, which was
rejected on 27.01.2001, which is, even according to the writ petitioner,
beyond the stipulated period of two months. The 3rd respondent rejected the
appeal filed by the petitioner on 27.01.2001 observing as follows:
"Perused the record, the case, P.case and SR, the irregularities
committed by the appellant are grave and serious in nature. The
DM/MDR was justified in issuing the orders of the said
punishment to the driver. The explanation submitted by the
appellant in his appeal is not at all convincing. Further the
appellant did not submit his appeal within the stipulated
period of two months. Therefore, I hereby order that the appeal
is REJECTED."
8. That apart, the 2nd respondent also issued proceedings in the year
2001 on 30.04.2001 confirming the proceedings of the 3rd respondent. As
argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Corporation,
there is no explanation offered by the writ petitioner in preferring the
appeal before the 3rd respondent and also about delay in filing the present
5 RRN,J
WP No.5871 of 2016
writ petition after a lapse of 15 years. The petitioner did not have any
semblance of grievance vis-à-vis punishment for all these 15 years until he
files writ petition in the year 2016.
9. Though the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulvant Singh Gill v. State of
Punjab's case (supra), but the facts and circumstances in the said case are
quite different to that of the facts and circumstances in the present case on
hand, as such, the said judgment is no way helpful to the petitioner.
10. In similar circumstances, the Full Bench of this Court in
P.V.Narayana v. A.P.State Road Transport Corporation2 disposed of
batch of writ petitions while dealing with a reference by a learned Single
Judge and observed as follows:
"56......Therefore, in Court's considered opinion, Kulwant
Singh Gill's case (1991 Suppl.(1)SCC 504) does not confer or
clothe an automatic right with the employee to challenge the
order of the authority at any time or whenever he wishes. The
principles laid down by the Apex Court governing the
condonation of delay will certainly and equally have application
even in cases where challenge is made to an order imposing the
punishment contrary to the Regulations or the ratio in Kulwant
Singh Gill's case (1991 Suppl.(1)SCC 504), where the
employee had slept over the matter and had not chosen to
challenge it within a reasonable period of time. It may also be
[(2013(3) ALT 711(F.B)]
6 RRN,J
WP No.5871 of 2016
noticed that in service matters, the Courts have applied the rule
of delay with greater rigor."
11. In view of above facts and circumstances and also in view of the
settled principle of law, there are no merits in this Writ Petition and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this
Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed.
______________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 21.10.2022
BDR
