Telangana High Court
D. Ramulu vs A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, ... on 31 January, 2025
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.1121 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.25662 of 2024, dated
01.05.2024.
2. Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for appellant,
Sri Nizampur Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on the intervening night
of 27/28.01.2013 theft of bus cash to the tune of Rs.32,02,876/- took
place from the main cash chest of Hanmakonda Bus Depot, while the
appellant was in the possession of the keys of the cash chest, which the
appellant along with the other two employees has exchanged among
themselves. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.25,70,276/- was recovered
from a stationed bus in the shed attached to the Hanmakonda bus
depot.
4. In the preliminary inquiry conducted by the respondents, the
cash chest was found intact, and the keys were in the possession of the
AKS,J & LNA,J
appellant. A regular inquiry was conducted, and the appellant, along
with the other two, were placed under suspension as there was
negligence and irresponsibility on the part of the appellant and the
other two persons. Accordingly, after affording reasonable opportunity
to the appellant and considering the reply, orders of punishment were
passed.
5. Aggrieved by the said removal orders, all three, including the
appellant, have approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.25662 of 2013,
19882 and 37978 of 2014, respectively, and the learned single Judge was
pleased to dismiss the said writ petitions vide common order dated
01.05.2024. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2024 of the learned
single Judge, the appellant filed the present Writ Appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order dated
01.05.2024 of the learned single Judge is ex facie illegal as the learned
Single Judge ought to have considered the appellant's unique grounds,
including the incorrect address used by the Corporation, the appellant's
police custody and medical issues preventing participation, and lack of
reasonable opportunity to defend during the ex parte inquiry.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
was on weekly off on 27.01.2013 and the keys were handed over to him
AKS,J & LNA,J
by the Assistant Depot Clerk on being asked by the Depot Clerk,
without any request of his or any authorization of the superiors. Hence,
all three persons were made responsible for the theft.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that learned single Judge
ought to have considered that the appellant, with 27 years of
unblemished service, was unfairly penalized for negligence based on
unsubstantiated charges and assumptions, while other responsible
parties, i.e., Depot Manager and Security Officer, were not held
accountable. He further submitted that, despite recovering most of the
theft amount and no substantial loss to the Corporation, his retirement
benefits were unjustly withheld, ignoring the closure of the criminal
case and the payment made on moral responsibility and finally, prayed
to set aside the impugned order, dated 01.05.2024, passed by the
learned single Judge and allow the Writ Appeal.
9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3
had submitted that the learned single Judge has rightly appreciated the
facts by holding that the appellant along with the other two failed to
explain how Rs.25,70,276/- of the stolen Rs.32,02,876/- was recovered
from a bus, despite the cash chest being intact and keys in the
possession of the appellant and two other employees. Their negligence
AKS,J & LNA,J
and irresponsible handling of keys indicate a failure to safeguard the
cash, warranting no leniency. It is further contended that there are no
merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration:
10. From the factual matrix of the case and the material submitted, it
can be seen that the respondents have ensured in all ways to serve the
appellant with the notices of inquiry by sending them via RPAD and
affixing them on the notice board. As per the report of the inquiry
officer, a detailed inquiry was conducted, statements were recorded,
and the delinquent officers were allowed to cross-examine to defend
the case. Hence, the principles of natural justice were followed by the
respondents in the case of the appellant.
11. Further, the appellant, along with two others, exchanged the keys
of the cash chest among themselves, at their convenience, without
informing the superiors. In furtherance of this, the act of the appellant
and the other two in exchanging the key without the permission of the
superior depicts their irresponsible attitude towards their duty. Hence,
the Learned Single Judge was correct in holding that, though the
amount to the tune of Rs.25,70,276/- was recovered, that itself cannot
be a ground to take the lenient view against the appellant and others.
AKS,J & LNA,J
12. From the material placed on record, it is inferred that the
appellant and the other two employees failed in their duty to safeguard
the cash chest, and because of which, the theft has taken place. Hence,
the learned single Judge was right in holding that, the whole chain of
events revealed the carelessness of the appellants in discharging their
duties, hence the appellant, along with the other two, was the right
person to explain the theft of cash as the chest was unbroken and the
key was in their possession. It is also evident that the appellant failed to
offer a convincing explanation or clarification for the theft of chest cash
when the key was in his possession.
13. The main contention of the appellant is that the inquiry was
conducted ex-parte and the principles of natural justice were not
followed while conducting the inquiry. In furtherance of this, the
learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments
of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer
and others 1 wherein it was held that a reasoned enquiry report is
essential, where the inquiry results in loss of livelihood; In M.V. Bijlani
v. Union of India and others 2 it was held that charges framed in
departmental proceedings are to be proved by preponderance of
(1985) 3 SCC 378
(2006) 5 SCC 88
AKS,J & LNA,J
probability and not beyond reasonable doubt; and in Mohd. Yousuf v.
Director General of Fire Services 3, it was held that the ex parte inquiry
and consequent order of dismissal are unsustainable when the notices
are sent to the wrong address. The said judgments relied upon by the
petitioner are not applicable to the case of the appellant as there is a
clear establishment of the preponderance of probability and application
of mind in the removal orders passed by the respondents. Hence, the
Learned Single Judge rightly held that the said cases are not applicable
to the case of the appellant.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on
the judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and
another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 4; and Siemens Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra and others 5, where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that a writ petition impugning a show cause notice or charge sheet is
not maintainable except in exceptional circumstances like when it is
found wholly without jurisdiction or illegal. These judgments are not
applicable to the present case as issuance of the notice is not without
jurisdiction.
(2013) 4 SCC 265
(2006) 12 SCC 28
(2006) 12 SCC 33
AKS,J & LNA,J
Conclusion:
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing
W.P.No.25662 of 2013 by a common order dated 01.05.2024 and,
therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order dated 01.05.2024.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 31.01.2025
Kkm
