Telangana High Court
A.Venkatesham vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 25 July, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT APPEAL No.137 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by
the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.26653 of 2018,
dated 03.11.2023.
2. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing
for appellant and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned standing counsel
for TSRTC appearing for respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the RTC Head Constable
of Nalgonda Depot reported that he was performing 08.00 hours
to 16.00 hours duty on 18.04.2016 and while checking the
incoming and outgoing drivers, the appellant, who was booked
for 12.30 hours GTPL-DSNR-CDR N/O. duty with vehicle
No.AP-28-Z-3354, was found in intoxicated condition; that he
checked the appellant with breath analyzer at 12.38 hours and it
showed 12 mg / 100 ml in first test and again the appellant was
AKS,J & LNA,J
checked for second time in the presence of ADC of Nalgonda
Depot at 12.48 hours and the breath analyzer showed as
6 mg/100 ml, and it was confirmed that appellant consumed
alcohol while on duty, resulting in much inconvenience to the
travelling public and it tarnished the image of the corporation.
4. Based on the above report and other evidence available on
record, charge sheet was framed against the appellant. Not
satisfied with the explanation submitted by the appellant, the 4th
respondent vide order dated 20.07.2016, imposed punishment of
withholding the annual increment when next falls due for a
period of two years which shall have effect on future increments
besides treating the suspension period as 'not on duty'.
5. Aggrieved by the order of 4th respondent, appellant
preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, however, the
appeal was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2016. Aggrieved by
the said rejection order dated 23.11.2016, appellant preferred
review petition before the 2nd respondent and the same was
rejected by the 2nd respondent as time barred vide order dated
15.06.2018.
AKS,J & LNA,J
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2016 of the 4th
respondent and as confirmed by the 3rd respondent and the 2nd
respondent, the appellant filed the W.P.No.26653 of 2018 and the
learned single Judge was pleased to dispose of the said writ
petition vide order dated 03.11.2023, modifying the punishment
to the extent of stoppage of annual grade increment for a period
of one year only with cumulative effect instead of two years with
cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2023 of the
learned single Judge, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though
the learned single Judge has come to a conclusion that charge
levelled against the appellant is not proved, without granting the
relief as claimed by the appellant in the writ petition, the learned
single Judge has modified the punishment to that of stoppage of
one increment with cumulative effect, which is contrary to the
material available on record. He submitted that on the date of
alleged incident, appellant has not consumed any alcohol; that he
was suffering with heavy cold and cough since last three days
and has taken tablets and cough syrup and has attended the duty
AKS,J & LNA,J
on 18.04.2016; that the security personnel conducted the breath
alcohol analyzer test to the appellant at about 12.38 hours and the
test report shown as 12 mg/100 ml vide check report no.3798;
that when again tested the appellant at 12.48 hours, the test
report shown as 6 mg/100 ml and he was not allowed to perform
his duties under the influence of alcohol.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
because of cold and cough, the appellant has used the tablets and
cough syrup and therefore, he attributes the readings of the
breath analyzing test towards the negligible quantity of the
alcohol present in the blood only because of consumption of
cough syrup. He further submitted that appellant was not
referred to the Government hospital for medical checkup to
know whether he was under the influence of alcohol or not and
therefore, appellant cannot be suspected to be under the
influence of alcohol beverage without conducting proper medical
examination.
9. He further submitted that as per the instructions issued
vide letter No.95ba(1)/12-HES, dated 22.09.2012, no disciplinary
AKS,J & LNA,J
action shall be initiated if the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) is less
than 30 mg/100ml; that since the finding in the instant case is
only presence of 6 mg of alcohol, the appellant cannot be
suspected to be under the influence of alcoholic beverage and be
subjected to any disciplinary proceedings on that ground. He
therefore prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the
impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned single
Judge insofar as not restoring the increment by treating the
suspension period as on duty.
10. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents while
reiterating the contentions raised before the learned single Judge,
submitted that consumption of alcohol and the affect of
intoxication cannot be said to be uniform and as such, merely
because alcohol content in the blood of a person having found
within the permissible limit, cannot in any view, entitle a person
to contend that he is still entitled to drive the bus and discharge
his normal functions as a driver without being subjected to any
disciplinary action including suspension. He further submitted
that no driver should either at the time of reporting for duty or
AKS,J & LNA,J
while performing the duties can be found ever to be under the
influence of an alcoholic beverage and therefore, the respondent-
Corporation was justified in imposing the punishment against
the appellant and therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the
writ appeal. The learned standing counsel relied upon on the
judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.3100 of 2015 dated
03.03.2015.
11. In W.P.No.3100 of 2015, relied upon by the learned
standing counsel for respondents, while referring to the decision
rendered by the learned single judge of this Court in
W.P.No.3627 of 2015 dated 19.02.2015, it is held as under:
"The Corporation is a public-sector undertaking
catering to the demand of the public for providing
transportation facilities at an affordable cost. Therefore, the
Corporation is entitled to ensure that all its employees bear
appropriate and decent conduct. It is also expected to
prescribe as to how the employees of the Corporation must
bear appropriate conduct. When once the Corporation has
recognized 'the influence of alcohol while on duty' as a
serious misconduct, in my opinion, the quantum of presence
of alcohol in the blood of the employee of the Corporation
pales completely into insignificance. The Corporation apart
from being obliged to preserve and protect its assets and
manage its resources, including its precious financial
resources, it also owes a larger social responsibility to the
other road users. The primary duty and obligation of the
Corporation is to ensure safety of the passengers /
commuters, who prefer to travel by the buses deployed by it.
Simultaneously, the Corporation also has to ensure that the
AKS,J & LNA,J
other road users are not exposed to any perilous
consequences. Any error of judgment on the part of a driver
of the Corporation while performing his duties as such,
would not only cause a dent to the precious financial
recourses of the Corporation by way of payment of
compensation to the victims, but would also cause a dent to
its reputation. Therefore, looked at it from this perceptive,
the Corporation viewing its employees in particular to be
under the influence of an alcoholic beverage as a serious
misconduct, cannot be taken exception to, however much
the percentage of the alcohol is available in the blood of the
employee concerned.
I am therefore, of the opinion that no driver should
either at the time of reporting for duty or while performing
actually the duties can be found ever to be under the
influence of an alcoholic beverage. The reason is not far to
seek. An alcoholic beverage is likely to impair, to certain
extent, the reflexes of an individual. A motor vehicle driver
is likely to encounter many a situation where reflexes are
needed to be employed with utmost speed and dexterity.
Any impairment of reflex senses is likely to delay their
deployment, which can make a huge difference either in
causing or even avoiding an accident on roads. I am
therefore, of the opinion that the Corporation is fully
justified in treating the conduct of its employees on duty
who are under the influence of alcohol, however small
quantity of its presence in the blood is, as a serious
misconduct.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the Circular issued by the Vice-Chairman &
Managing Director of the Corporation on 22-09-2012, which
was issued subsequent to framing of the Regulations. It is for
the Vice-Chairman & Managing Director of the Corporation
to reconcile at the earliest this discrepancy. For this purpose,
I direct the Registry to communicate a copy of this order to
the Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh
State Road Transport Corporation, so as to provide an
opportunity for reconciling the contradictions noticed supra.
I hope and trust that the inquiry initiated against the
petitioner shall be completed as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a maximum period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order provided the petitioner
extends the necessary cooperation through out."
AKS,J & LNA,J
12. Pursuant to the order dated 03.03.2015 in W.P.No.3100 of
2015, the respondent-Corporation had reviewed the issue and
issued instructions vide Circular No.1/2015-LD, dated 06.04.2015
to the concerned as under:
"Therefore, keeping in view the safety of the
passengers and other road users and the observations of the
Hon'ble High Court, the issue has been reviewed. It has been
decided to take stringent measures to avoid drunken driving
and to take severe disciplinary action on employees, who are
found to have consumed alcohol while they are on duty.
Hence, the instructions issued vide reference 4th cited are
hereby rescinded. The Field Officers are advised to initiate
severe disciplinary action, if the employees especially drivers
are found to have consumed alcohol while on duty.
All the authorities concerned are advised to adhere to
the instructions and to ensure that no driver performs duty, if
he is found to have consumed alcohol."
13. Admittedly, charge sheet was issued against the appellant
on the complaint dated 18.04.2016 made by the RTC Head
Constable of Nalgonda Depot that on conducting breath analyzer
test on the appellant, he was found under the influence of alcohol
while on duty. The charges levelled against appellant are based
on material collected by the disciplinary authority that he was
under the influence of alcohol beverage while on duty, which is
a serious misconduct. Further, the primary duty and obligation
of the respondent-Corporation is to ensure safety of the
AKS,J & LNA,J
passengers/commuters, who prefer to travel by the buses
deployed by it and also to ensure that the other road users are
not exposed to any perilous consequences.
14. The disciplinary authority on considering the explanation
submitted, imposed the punishment of withholding of annual
increment when next falls due for a period of two years which
shall have effect of his future increments besides duly treating
the suspension period as 'not on duty'. The appeal and review
preferred by the appellant were dismissed. Then the appellant
approached this Court by filing W.P.No.26653 of 2018 and the
learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ
petition modifying the punishment to that of stoppage of annual
grade increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect
instead of two years with cumulative effect, without touching
the rest of the order.
15. It is evident from the impugned show-cause notice that
disciplinary authority has considered the explanation submitted
by the appellant and held that charges are proved by duly
assigning reasons. In considered opinion of this Court, the order
passed by the disciplinary authority is a well considered
decision.
AKS,J & LNA,J
16. It is settled principle of law that the writ Court in exercise
of power of judicial review cannot sit as an appellate forum and
re-appreciate the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry and
to come to a different conclusion from the conclusion arrived at
in the domestic enquiry. The scope of judicial review against
departmental proceedings is very narrow and confined to
whether procedural formalities are complied; whether
delinquent employee was given reasonable opportunity to
establish his defence; whether there is appreciation of material
on record before holding the employee guilty or findings are
arrived based on surmises and conjunctures; whether
disciplinary authority considered the material on record and
arrived at independent conclusion; whether the concerned
authority is having bias and prejudice against the employee and
acted against the interest of the employee without observing due
process and with pre-determined notion of guilt.
17. In disciplinary proceedings against employee proof of
allegation can be on principle of 'preponderance of probabilities'
unlike in criminal proceedings. A master can severe relationship
with his servant on proving misconduct. If master is a public
sector undertaking, such relationship is regulated by set of
regulations. Master is required to follow procedure envisaged in
AKS,J & LNA,J
regulations before severing the relationship. The substantive
requirement of the regulations is whenever misconduct is
alleged employee must be told of the allegation, supply material
based on which such allegation is made, give an opportunity to
rebut the allegations and on due consideration and by a
reasoned order shall take a decision. In a given facts of the case,
charge sheet need not be proved by leading oral evidence, but
can be established based on documents on record.
18. From the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered view that learned single
Judge had rightly disposed of the W.P.No.26653 of 2018
modifying the punishment relying upon the earlier decision of
learned single judge of this Court and considering the length of
service put up by the appellant and the discrepancies in the
breath analyzer test reading. Thus, Writ Appeal is devoid of any
merit. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.26653 of 2018
dated 03.11.2023.
19. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
AKS,J & LNA,J
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 25.07.2024
KKM
