T.V. Vinodh vs Telangana State Road Transport ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1040 Tel

Telangana High Court

T.V. Vinodh vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 10 January, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                  WRIT PETITION No.43076 of 2022
ORDER:

Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the

request of the petitioner through Proceedings No.PA/19(165)/2022-ED,

KRZ, dated 23.06.2023, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel, representing Sri

V.Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Sri Krishna

Karthik, learned counsel, representing Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned

Standing Counsel, for respondent-Corporation.

3) The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as

Conductor w.e.f.27.05.2015 and posted at Bodhan Depot. Thereafter,

he along with 22 others were asked to work in Warangal Region on

deputation basis vide order dated 04.04.2016. Accordingly, he was

deputed to work in Mahabubabad Depot w.e.f.12.04.2016. Thereafter,

his services were regularized w.e.f.01.05.2017 by the Regional Manager,

Nizamabad, vide order dated 21.06.2017. Further, while he was

working at Mahabubabad Depot, he was removed from service vide

order dated 27.08.2018 on the ground that he was involved in cash and

ticket irregularities while conducting bus service on 05.04.2018. The

appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were also rejected vide

orders dated 22.03.2019 and 12.09.2019 respectively. However, on

review petition being filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 vide order

-2- PK, J WP_43076_2022

dated 13.02.2020 has modified the punishment order to that of

postponement of annual increments for a period of two years which

shall have an effect on future increments and that the period from the

date of removal to that of reinstatement shall be treated as not on duty

and thereby ordered reinstatement of the petitioner. Consequently,

respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 18.02.2020 posting the

petitioner to work in respondent No.4-Depot and directing the petitioner

to report within three days from the date of receipt of the said order

copy. However, due to Covid lockdown and demise of his brother-in-

law, petitioner could not report within the said period of three days

before respondent No.4. Thereafter, when the petitioner has

approached respondent No.4, he was not allowed to join duty. Finally,

on 23.06.2023 respondent No.2 has rejected the request of the

petitioner vide Proceedings No.PA/19(165)/2022-ED:KRZ. Hence, the

present Writ Petition.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

respondents ought to have considered that there was a reasonable and

sufficient cause for the petitioner for not reporting to duty before

respondent No.4, in terms of order dated 13.02.2020 and 18.02.2020

passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively and the respondents

ought to have appreciated that the brother-in-law of the petitioner was

expired in the month of February, 2020 and therefore he could not

report within three days as directed in the order dated 13.02.2020.

                                    -3-                                PK, J
                                                             WP_43076_2022

Hence, the action of the respondent No.2 in rejecting the request of the

petitioner vide impugned rejection order 23.06.2023 is in violation of

principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution

of India. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on:

1) Judgment dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1429 of 2011; and

2) Order dated 01.12.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No.15194 of 2021.

5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel while narrating the

facts leading to removal of the petitioner from services vide order dated

27.08.2018 has contended that the appeal and revision filed by the

petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2019 and 12.09.2019

respectively. However, vide order dated 13.02.2020, the Review

Authority i.e. respondent No.2 while considering the III Level appeal

filed by the petitioner, on humanitarian grounds, has modified the

punishment and directed reinstatement of the petitioner by imposing

certain conditions with a further direction to the petitioner to report

before the Depot Manager, Parkal Depot, within three days from the

date of receipt of said order. Inspite of acknowledging the said order on

18.02.2020, petitioner failed to report for duty and after a lapse of 2

years and 5 months, petitioner made a representation before

respondent No.2 stating that due to lockdown he could not report at

Parkal Depot and the said request was rightly rejected by respondent

-4- PK, J WP_43076_2022

No.2 vide impugned order. Learned Standing Counsel has further

contended that the petitioner himself failed to report at Parkal Depot

within the stipulated time despite the specific direction of respondent

No.2 to report. It is further contended that lockdown came into effect

from 21.03.2020 and the same was released in a phased manner and in

fact the buses also started operation partially from September, 2020,

onwards. Yet, the petitioner has not reported at Parkal Depot and only

one year after completion of Covid pandemic, he approached the

authorities seeking to allow him to join the duty. Therefore, there are

no merits in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed.

6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective

parties and perused the material on record.

7) A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner was removed

from service on 27.08.2018 on the ground of involvement of cash and

ticket irregularities. Further, the appeal and revision filed by the

petitioner were also dismissed on 22.03.2019 and 12.09.2019 by the

Divisional Manager, Warangal, and Regional Manager, Warangal,

respectively. However, in Review Petition, vide order dated 13.02.2020,

respondent No.2 has modified the punishment to that of postponement

of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and ordered

reinstatement of the petitioner subject to certain conditions. Thereafter,

consequential order dated 18.02.2020 was passed by respondent No.3

posting at petitioner at Parkal Depot and further directing the petitioner

-5- PK, J WP_43076_2022

to report before respondent No.4 within a period of three days from the

date of receipt of said order. However, the petitioner failed to report

before respondent No.4 within the stipulated time. The ground urged

by the petitioner is that due to death of his brother-in-law, he could not

report before respondent No.4. It is the further contention of the

petitioner that initially, he approached respondent No.4 several times

and requested to permit him to join the duty. Since respondent No.4

has not permitted the petitioner, he made an application to respondent

No.2 on 29.07.2022 seeking to restore the order dated 13.02.2020, duly

explaining the reasons for his non-joining as per the order dated

13.02.2020.

8) While dealing with a similar situation, the Division Bench of this

Court vide judgment dated 28.12.2011 in Writ Appeal No.1429 of 2011

has held as under:

"5. It is a case of unauthorized absence and there are no other allegations made against the workman. The fact that the workman was directed to be re-instated into service by proceedings of the Regional Manager dated 5-2-2009 was within the knowledge of the workman. There is no material that the workman attempted to sought for time for joining the duty. In the circumstances, the workman shall not be entitled to count service to avail the service benefits for the period from 8-12-2008 (i.e. the date on which the workman received the letter of appointment re- instating him into service) to 26-8-2011 (i.e. the date on which he reported for duty) instead of 21-10-2003 to 1-9-2011 as observed by the learned single Judge."

                                  -6-                                    PK, J
                                                               WP_43076_2022

Said ratio has been followed by this Court in W.P. No.15194 of 2021,

dated 01.12.2023.

9) In view of the above and following the judgment dated 28.12.2011

passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1429 of 2011, the

present Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms:

1) The respondents shall permit the petitioner-workman to join the duty, in terms of order dated 13.02.2020 passed by respondent No.2, however, without reference to the time stipulated thereunder, and also issue posting orders to him;

2) The petitioner-workman is not entitled for counting of the services and other service benefits from 13.02.2020 (the date on which the petitioner was posted at Parkal Depot) till the date of his joining pursuant to this order;

3) The absence of the petitioner for the said period shall be treated as 'NOT ON DUTY', however, the said period shall be counted for the purpose of continuity of service without any monetary benefits.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 10-01-2025.

sur

Issue C.C. in one week.