Telangana High Court

D.V. Swamy, vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 8 September, 2023

Bench: J Sreenivas Rao

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.22370 of 2017

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the WRIT OF CERTIORARI quash the impugned Proc No PA/1989/2015HZ dated 14 03 2016 in so far as reducing the pay by 2 incremental stages with permanent effect besides treating the removal period as not on duty for all purposes and denial of back wages as arbitrary unjust and in violation of Art 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently the petitioner pray this Honible Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the reducing increments along with all consequential benefits treating the removal period as on duty..."

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The petitioner joined in the respondent Corporation as

conductor in the year 1990 after undergoing the due process of

selection. Subsequently, his service was regularized in the year

1992. While the petitioner was conducting the bus service on

04.10.2006 in the route of Nagarkurnool to Kalwakurthy, a check

was exercised between stage No.9 and 8 about 11.00 hours and

the checking officials issued charge memo alleging that the

petitioner has not issued the ticket to one passenger even after

collecting the fare. The petitioner submitted his explanation to

the said charge memo and being not satisfied with the same

respondent No.3 suspended the petitioner from service and issued

charge sheet on 12.10.2006. Petitioner submitted his explanation

denying the charges leveled against him. Being not satisfied with

the same, respondent No.3 ordered enquiry and basing on the

enquiry report removed the petitioner from services on

10.01.2007. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal and

revision and the same were rejected on 24.09.2007 and

16.11.2015 respectively. Questioning the said orders, petitioner

preferred review petition before respondent No.2 invoking

Regulation 30 of TSRTC/APSRTC, C.C. & A Reg. 1967 and

respondent No.2 modified the punishment and ordered

reinstatement of the petitioner into service, by reducing his pay by

two incremental stages which will have future effect and the period

from date of removal from service to reinstatement shall be treated

as not on duty for the purpose of leave, wages, increments,

seniority and settlements by its order dated 14.03.2016.

Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ

petition.

3. Heard Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for

the respondent Corporation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during

the course of enquiry, the checking officials brought one person

alleging that the said person has travelled in the bus, but the

ticket was not issued to him in spite of collecting the fare. The

petitioner submitted explanation stating that the said person has

not travelled in the bus and question of not issuing the ticket by

collecting the bus fare does not arise and further contended that

the TTI has failed to take thumb impression of the said passenger,

and further contended that, during the course of enquiry

respondent Corporation has not produced any evidence to prove

the charges leveled against the petitioner and in spite of the same,

enquiry officer submitted enquiry report stating that the charges

leveled against the petitioner were proved.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that during

the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer has given all

opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case and after

conducting detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report on

18.11.2016 proving the charges leveled against the petitioner. He

further submits that the petitioner has not questioned the said

enquiry findings nor raised any objection during the course of

enquiry and the petitioner is not entitled to contend that the

enquiry officer without properly conducting the enquiry submitted

enquiry report and the impugned order passed by review authority

is in accordance with law. The petitioner without availing the

remedy as provided under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947 filed

the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable under

law. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of

State Bank of India and Others Vs. Narendra Kumar

Pandey 1.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on

record, it reveals that petitioner joined services in the respondent

Corporation as conductor in the year 1990 and his services were

regularized in the year 1992. On 04.10.2006, while the petitioner

was conducting bus service, a check was exercised and the

checking officials have issued a charge memo alleging that he has

not issued the ticket to one passenger after collecting the fare, for

which the petitioner submitted his explanation. Being not

satisfied with the same, respondent No.3 suspended the petitioner

from service on 12.10.2006 and issued charge sheet with the

following charges:

1. For having failed to observe the Rule "Issue and Start' which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

2. For having failed to issue ticket to a passenger who boarded you bus at Nagarkurnool bound for Nellikonda X road Ex. Stages 9 to 9/8 even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.3.00 at the boarding point itself, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of

1 2013 2 SCC 740

APSRTC Employees(conduct) Reg. 1963.

7. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above said

charge sheet. Being not satisfied with the same, the respondent

Corporation ordered enquiry and basing on the enquiry report

submitted by the enquiry officer, respondent No.3 removed the

petitioner from services. Questioning the same, the petitioner

filed appeal and revision which were rejected on 24.09.2007 and

16.11.2015 respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

filed review petition before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2

modified the punishment order and ordered reinstatement of the

petitioner by imposing following conditions:

1. On his reinstatement his pay is reduced by two incremental stages which will have future effect and

2. that the period from the date of removal from service to the reinstatement shall be treated as not on duty for the purpose of leave, wages, increments, seniority and settlements.

8. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the

respondent Corporation that the petitioner without exhausting the

alternative remedy as available under the provisions of Section 2

A(2) of the Act, filed this writ petition is not tenable under law,

especially after lapse of five years and in view of the above fact, the

principle laid down in State Bank of India supra is not

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9. Taking into consideration the length of services rendered

by the petitioner and also to meet the ends of justice, the

impugned order dated 14.03.2016 passed by respondent No.2

imposing punishment of reduction of petitioner's pay by two

incremental stages which will have future effect and the period