M. Devidas vs Telangana State Road Transport ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4780 Tel

Telangana High Court

M. Devidas vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 11 April, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                  WRIT PETITION No.31731 of 2024
ORDER:

Seeking to quash the impugned order of suspension from

service and charge sheet vide common case No.01/227(2)/2024-

ZHB, dated 11.09.2024, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently

to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service

along with all consequential benefits, the present writ petition is

filed.

2) Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Sri U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned Standing

Counsel for TSRTC, appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

year 2010, the petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent

Corporation after undergoing due process of selection. Thereafter,

his services were regularized w.e.f.14.05.2014 and since then he

has been discharging his duties. While so, on 11.09.2024 he was

placed under suspension and also issued with a charge memo

leveling four charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that as the petitioner was insisted to perform the duties

of Conductor with the help of TIM while driving the passengers'

vehicles, for more than one month, he made a representation dated

30.08.2024 to respondent No.2 stating that he cannot discharge

-2- PK, J WP_31731_2024

the duties of Conductor as he was appointed as Driver and

requesting to post him only as driver to passenger carriage vehicle.

Thereafter, though the petitioner has reported for duty, he was

treated as absent as he could not go to TIM's service. When the

petitioner objected for the same, he was placed under suspension

and issued with the impugned charge memo dated 11.09.2024,

which is illegal and arbitrary.

3.1) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

impugned action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary

proceedings for not performing the duties of the Conductor is

contrary to the appointment order of the petitioner and is nothing

but colourable exercise of the power on the part of the

respondents. Further, the petitioner has requested the authorities

to furnish the copies of the depositions recorded in the Preliminary

Enquiry and documents. As the same were not provided by

respondent No.2, the taking of photos of the same, for the purpose

of his defense statement, cannot be faulted with and cannot be

treated as misconduct. Learned counsel has further contended

that asking the petitioner (driver) to do the duty of the conductor

while driving the bus is nothing but extracting the work of two

jobs, which is unknown to law. It is further contended that as per

the Manual on Operation of the respondent Corporation, the driver

-3- PK, J WP_31731_2024

has to drive the bus as per the instruction of the conductor, but

not otherwise. Hence, it is prayed to allow the writ petition and

set aside the suspension order granting all consequential benefits.

Reliance has been placed on M.Mayandi v. Director, Tamil Nadu

State Transport Department 1 and C.G.Swamy v. APSRTC,

Hyderabad 2.

4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that

on 26.08.2024 the petitioner has reported for duty, signed on duty

chart/control charge but refused to perform the duty on

1150/1210 Deluxe Bidar-Hyderabad even after undergoing

training on operation of TIMs from 16.07.2024 to 23.08.2024. As

such, the Assistant Manager (Traffic), Zaheerabad, had conducted

a Preliminary Enquiry and submitted his report on 03.09.2024

wherein the petitioner has participated but refused to sign on the

statements. Based on the said report, four charges were framed

against the petitioner vide Charge Memo dated 11.09.2024.

Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the

petitioner himself has admitted in the writ affidavit that he refused

to go on TIM Service. As the petitioner was trained on operation of

TIMS, he cannot refuse to perform duty. Learned Standing

Counsel while drawing the attention of this Court to the

(1981) 2 SCC 89

2012 (3) ALD 494

-4- PK, J WP_31731_2024

amendment made to Rule 72 of Telangana State Motor Vehicle

Rules, 1989, has contended that in terms thereof, the respondent

Corporation can utilize the services of the petitioner, who was

parted with necessary training in operation of issue of tickets

through TIM, as Conductor, but the petitioner refused to perform

the duty as such, which caused inconvenience to the passengers.

Further, the Enquiry Officer has issued a letter to attend the

enquiry on 13.12.2024. In these circumstances, it is prayed to

dismiss the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on The Deputy

General of Police, Kurnool Range v. R.S. Madhubabu 3 and

judgment dated 11.07.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Appeal No.668 of 2023.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by

respective parties and perused the material on record.

6) As can be seen from the record, as the petitioner refused to

go on TIM services from Bidar to Hyderabad on 26.08.2024, he was

placed under suspension vide Case No.01/227(2)/2024-ZHB,

dated 11.09.2024, besides issuance of charge sheet vide

No.01/227(2)/ 2024-DM:ZHB, on the even date i.e. 11.09.2024.

The main ground urged by the petitioner in this writ petition is

3 2009 (4) ALD 87

-5- PK, J WP_31731_2024

that as he was appointed as driver, he cannot be compelled to

perform the duties of a conductor.

7) In this context, it is apt to state that the Government has

issued G.O.Ms.No.41, Transport, Roads & Buildings Department,

dated 29.09.2015 and made an amendment to the Telangana State

Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, by incorporating a new Rule 72-A,

which reads as under:

"72-A: Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 72, the drivers of stage carriages performing the functions of Conductors are exempted from possession of conductor's licence required under sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act, subject to the following conditions:

(1) The driver, acting as conductor in a Stage carriage shall have the Educational Qualifications prescribed in rule 54.

(2) ...

(3) The driver shall have undergone training for a minimum period of (3) days in the operation of issue of tickets through ticket issuing machine or through other means."

8) A perusal of the material on record reveals that the petitioner

was given training on operation of TIMs from 16.07.2024 to

23.08.2024 and earlier also he performed the duties as TIM service

driver on the route Kandukuru to Bangalore during the period

2020-2021.

                                  -6-                              PK, J
                                                         WP_31731_2024




9)    The record further discloses that pursuant to the charge

memo, for the purpose of conducting domestic enquiry, notices

dated 09.12.2024, 16.12.2024 and 20.12.2024 were issued to the

petitioner asking him to attend for enquiry and also to bring

evidence or witnesses in support of his defence and the enquiry is

still going on. It is settled law that suspension pending enquiry is

not a punishment and the Courts ordinarily shall not be allowed to

interfere with. Therefore, as the enquiry is still in progress, at this

stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned

charge sheet and suspension of the petitioner, dated 11.09.2024.

10) Coming to the judgments relied by the learned counsel for

the petitioner are concerned, both are distinguishable on facts of

the present case. In M.Mayandi's case (referred supra), the

driver refused to perform duty due to overload of the bus as the

same is violative of Section 123 of Motor Vehicles Act, but the same

is not the case of the petitioner herein. Similarly, in C.G. Swamy's

case (referred supra), the learned Judge has directed the

respondent Corporation not to insist the petitioners and other

drivers to perform dual job of drivers and conductors with TIMS

services. But, in view of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.41, dated

29.09.2015 whereby Rule 72-A was inserted in Telangana State

-7- PK, J WP_31731_2024

Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the said judgments are not applicable

to the case on hand.

11) In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid

of merits.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No costs.

                                                 _____________________
                                                  PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date :     11 - 04 - 2025
sur