Telangana High Court
E. Chandraiah, Hyd vs M.D., Tsrtc., Hyd 3 Ot on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P. No.2192 OF 2017
% 06-01-2023
# E. Chandraiah
....petitioner
Vs.
$ Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Bus
Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and others
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : V. Narsimha Goud
Counsel for the Respondents : N. Praveen Reddy, Standing Counsel for TSRTC
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2007) 4 SCC 627
2. (2015) 2 SCC 610
2 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WP. No.2192 OF 2017
Between:
E. Chandraiah
....petitioner
Vs.
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Bus
Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and others
... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 06.01.2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
3 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
4 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 2192 OF 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"To issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly
one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI to quash the
impugned order No.PA/19(45)/2016-HZ dt.07.06.2016
in so far as denying the past service and other
consequential benefits as unjust and arbitrary and
consequently, the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the
reinstatement as a fresh as that of reinstatement with
continuity of services, attendant benefits and back
wages along with all consequential benefits."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner joined the respondents' Corporation as a conductor in
the year 1997 under the displaced employees' quota on regular
basis and working under the control of the 4th respondent Depot.
While the petitioner was conducting the bus service of the 3rd
respondent Depot on 29.07.2015 from Srisailam to JBS,
5 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
Secunderabad, the bus was checked three (03) times and the
checking authorities could not detect any irregularities in the work
of the petitioner, as such, did not issue any charge memo on the
spot. However, the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated
29.07.2015 after (10) days from the date of the checking with
charges relating to ticket irregularities by way of reissuance
causing loss of revenue to the Corporation. Despite the petitioner's
explanation, the respondents without considering the same,
suspended the petitioner from service on 17.08.2015 and issued a
charge sheet dated 17.08.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
tickets were accounted for at the place where they were issued to
him and at no point of time he was informed about the tickets
having multiple punching. During the course of enquiry, one Sri
Narasimlu, TTI, was examined in support of the charges, wherein
he admitted that the charges were framed against the petitioner on
suspicious grounds, but not on facts. It was also contended that
another TTI Sri A. Santosh was examined, wherein he admitted
that the framed allegations of re-issue on the ground that the
6 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
tickets were having more punches. It was also admitted by the
witnesses that they have not followed the checking rules in issuing
the charge memo on the spot check and other mandatory
procedures were not followed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
enquiry report was submitted with the findings that there was the
loss of revenue to the Corporation and as there was more number
of punching on the tickets, there was every possibility/chance of
re-issuing the tickets and the report was issued and later, upheld
by Higher Authorities in a mechanical manner as the charges were
considered proved on the mere chance of re-issuance of tickets,
but should be based on clear evidence and findings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
petitioner filed a review petition under Regulation 30 of the
APSRTC, C.C & A Regulation 1967 and the 2nd respondent vide its
proceedings dated 07.06.2016 concluded that the re-issuance of
tickets is not proved, whereas due to punching the tickets multiple
times, it indicates the intention for the scope of re-issue. While
holding the same, the 2nd respondent ordered the reinstatement of
7 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
the petitioner as afresh as a measure of punishment. And such
punishment is neither supported by regulations nor by law and
due to the same, the petitioner is drawing a fresh conductor salary.
Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
denied the allegations made by the petitioner and contended that
on 29.07.2015, while the petitioner was discharging his duties, his
bus was checked and certain cash and ticket irregularities were
detected, based on the above allegations and the report of the TTI's
of RES/GR, the petitioner was placed under suspension and
issued Charge Sheet on 17.08.2015 for the following charges:
i) "For having punching the two (2) tickets of
denomination of Rs.100/- bearing Nos. 161/416500-
501 for eight (8) times instead of four (4) times (i.e an
excess issued to the two passengers who boarded
the bus at stage No.18 (SSLM) and bounding to stage
No.4 (Kandukur) while performing the service on
route SSLM-JBS on 29.07.2015 causing loss of
revenues to the Corporation which constitutes mis-
conduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxiii) and (xxxii) of
APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963."
8 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
ii) "For having punching the two (2) tickets of
denomination of Rs.100/- bearing Nos. 161/416505-
506 for six (6) times instead of four (4) times i.e an
excess punching of two (2) times to re-issue the
tickets, which was issued to the three passengers
who boarded the bus at stage No.18 (SSLM) and
bounding to stage No.1 MGBS while performing the
service on route SSLM-JBS on 29.07.2015 causing
loss of revenues to the Corporation which constitutes
mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxiii) and (xxxii) of
APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963."
iii) "For having punching the three (3) tickets of
denomination of Rs.100/- bearing Nos. 161/416502
to 504 for six (6) times instead of four (4) times i.e an
excess punching of four (4) times to re-issue the
tickets, which was issued to the two passengers
who boarded the bus at stage No.18 (SSLM) and
bounding to stage No.5 (Kadthal) while performing
the service on route SSLM-JBS on 29.07.2015
causing loss of revenues to the Corporation which
constitutes mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxiii) and
(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963."
iv) "For having issued the tickets manually with hand
tray though the TIM allotted to the said service is in
working condition, depicts your fraudulent motive
which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28
(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963"
9 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
v) "For having failed to entry the issued tickets stage
by stage in STAR document bearing No.000/902852
of your service and closed the denomination of
tickets in a single line by deviating the standing
instructions of the corporation, which constitutes mis-
conduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxiii) and (xxxii) of
APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that
the petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.09.2015 with
respect to the above charges and as the Disciplinary Authority was
not convinced with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was
ordered duly appointing an enquiry officer to conduct a detailed
enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on
10.12.2015 to the Disciplinary Authority wherein it was held that
the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him
and the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice of
removal from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation and
after due consideration, the Disciplinary Authority passed the
order of removal from service vide proceedings dated 29.12.2015.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that
the petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Dy.CTM/RR and the same
10 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
was rejected on 14.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred a Review Petition before the RM/RR and the same was
rejected vide proceedings dated 05.05.2016. Ultimately, the
petitioner preferred Mercy Petition before the Executive Director
and the Executive Director upheld the misconduct by holding that
all the charges have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and
further held that the orders passed by the lower Authorities are in
conformity with the CCA Regulations, 1967 and ordered the
reinstatement of the petitioner into service as afresh vide
proceedings dated 07.06.2016.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that
the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy of
approaching the Labour Court and directly filed the present writ
petition. Further, in pursuance to the reinstatement of the
petitioner, he served the Corporation till his retirement on
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018 and all his
accounts were settled and all retirement benefits were paid.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
11 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
10. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri N. Praveen Reddy, standing counsel appearing
for the respondents. Perused the record.
11. As per the records, it is necessary to extract the relevant
portion of the proceedings dt.07.06.2016 issued by the Executive
Director, Hyderabad Zone which reads as follows:
"After considering all aspects I feel that the conductor
himself is responsible for the allegation made against him.
Though it is not established regarding reissue but
punching with more number stages clearly indicates the
intention and scope for reissue. After taking into
consideration of all aspects a chance is hereby given by
way of reinstatement duly setting aside the removal
order issued by the Depot Manager, Picket subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
a) He is hereby reinstated into service as AFRESH
CONDUCTOR.
b) His reinstatement is subject to fitness in the medical
examination.
c) He has to pay the Security Deposit at the depot
posted."
12 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
12. It is unfortunate that the 2nd respondent despite finding that
the reissue of tickets is not established, held that it clearly
indicates the intention and scope for the reissue of tickets by the
petitioner. Even by assuming the version of the 2nd respondent to
be true, the mere alleged intention of the petitioner to reissue the
tickets and impose such a harsh punishment on the petitioner is
unwarranted. Once the 2nd respondent himself set aside the
removal order, he ought not to have limited the petitioner's
reinstatement as afresh.
13. As the respondents failed to prove the reissuance of tickets
and there is negligence on the part of the petitioner for reasons
best known for the extra punches present on the tickets and the
mere presence of the extra punches on the tickets would not be
sufficient to hold the charges to be proved and award a
punishment of removal from service, which is shockingly
disproportionate even basing on assumptions, and when the same
is set aside by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner ought to have
been given the continuity of service and other benefits as there was
no loss caused to the respondent Corporation.
13 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
14. Learned counsel for the respondents relied up on the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. SRTC vs. Ram Kishan
Arora1 wherein it was held at para No.7 as follows:
"7. The High Court has not arrived at the conclusion that
the quantum of punishment imposed upon the
respondent was disproportionate to the gravity of his
misconduct. Even in such a situation, the course which
would have been ordinarily open to the High Court was
to remit the matter to the employer for reconsideration of
the question in regard to the quantum of punishment.
The High Court without assigning any reason could not
have substituted its opinion to that of the disciplinary
authority."
15. Though it is settled law that the usual course to be taken by
Courts in interfering with the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority should be very minimal and that the matter
must ordinarily be remitted back to the employer, the petitioner in
the present case has retired from service on 31.05.2018 and it
cannot be served right to the petitioner at this stage, i.e after a
period of more than (05) years to remit back the matter to the
respondents' Corporation. As such, this Court is inclined to modify
the punishment imposed on the petitioner given the lapse of time.
(2007) 4 SCC 627.
14 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
16. The counsel for the respondents relied on the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. P.
Gunasekaran2 the relevant portion on page 616 is as hereunder:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings,
reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry
officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a
second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise
of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the
evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(2015) 2 SCC 610
15 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could
ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to
admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence."
17. A careful reading of the above decision would not help the
respondents' case but in fact, would help the petitioner's
contentions. Clauses (d), (f) and (i) of the observation in the
preceding paragraph can be clearly attributed to the present case
as the finding of the respondent's Corporation/Authorities is based
on no evidence and merely on the assumption or intention that the
petitioner could've committed the misconduct. As such, the
petitioner can be granted the relief as sought for to a limited
extent.
18. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not
availed alternative remedy i.e. approaching the Labour Court, is
16 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
discarded as this Court has the discretion to entertain the Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even in cases
where the of alternative remedy is not exhausted. This observation
is fortified by the observation in the decision of a Division Bench of
this Court relied upon by the petitioner, wherein this Court while
dealing with a similar issue in W.A No.480 of 2018 3 held as
follows:
"15. Regarding maintainability of the writ petition as
raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the
appellants, the respondent has two remedies, one is
before the Labour Court and another is under Article 226
of the constitution of India. Normally, when there is
alternative remedy available, the Courts do not entertain
the petition and direct the respondent to approach the
Labour Court. However, in the present case, the learned
Single Judge has entertained the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is neither
unconstitutional nor illegal. On this aspect also, we find
no ground in the present appeal."
19. The petitioner joined service in the year 1997, was removed
from service on 29.12.2015, was reinstated into service as afresh
on 07.06.2016 and retired from service on 31.05.2018. However,
this Writ Petition is filed in 2017 and more than five years are
lapsed, at this juncture, it is not desirable to direct the petitioner
The Regional Manager NR and ors. Vs. E.S Anjaneyulu decided on 18.07.2018.
17 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
to approach the proper Forum. In the said circumstances, this
Court feels that to meet the ends of justice, relief can be granted to
the petitioner to some extent.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the
respondents can be directed to modify the proceedings dated
07.06.2016 to the extent indicated below.
21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The
respondents are directed to modify the proceedings dated
07.06.2016 from that of treating the petitioner's reinstatement as
afresh to that of reinstatement into service with continuity of
service and grant back wages, attendant and consequential
benefits to the petitioner to a tune of 50% only from 29.12.2015
and pay the same within a period of four (04) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
18 RRN, J
W.P No.2192 of 2017
6th day of January, 2023
BDR
