G P Singh Nayak vs Tsrtc
2025 Latest Caselaw 3080 Tel

Telangana High Court

G P Singh Nayak vs Tsrtc on 13 March, 2025

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                   WRIT PETITION No.13624 of 2024
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned Proc. No. E1/114(1)/2022-RM.KR, dated 24.05.2024, removing the petitioner from service as illegal arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Art. 14, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all benefits..."

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was

working as Assistant Manager (T), based on an article published in a

newspaper and also a complaint dated 17.08.2022 lodged by one

Mr. G. Tirupathi Nayak, a preliminary enquiry was conducted against

the petitioner by the Assistant Engineer (M) of respondent No.3-

Depot, and he submitted the preliminary enquiry report on

31.08.2022. Subsequently, respondent No.2 issued the charge sheet

dated 09.03.2023, framing four charges against the petitioner. In

response to the said charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his

explanation, denying the said charges. However, an enquiry was

conducted by the Depot Manager, Karimnagar Depot, who submitted

PK, J

his enquiry report, holding charges 1 and 2 as proved, while charges

3 and 4 were held as not proved. Consequently, based on the said

enquiry report, the respondents have removed the petitioner from

service vide impugned proceedings No.E1/114(1)/2022-RM:KR dated

24.05.2024. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent

No.2 failed to appreciate that Mr. G. Tirupathi Nayak, the individual

whose complaint was the basis for initiation of the present

proceedings, was never examined during the enquiry, which deprived

the petitioner of a valuable opportunity to cross-examine the

complainant. Hence, the said action of the respondents is in violation

of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and is also

untenable under law. It is further contended that respondent No.2

failed to appreciate that the findings of the enquiry officer regarding

charges 1 and 2 are based on perverse reasons, as the said charges

are already vague, and the enquiry officer had also held the charges 3

and 4 as not proved. It is further contended that the allegations

PK, J

outlined in the charges are not only vague but also lack severity, and

thus, the charges are defective since they do not align with the

meaning of misconduct under which the petitioner was charged.

Hence, the impugned proceedings are not tenable in law. Further,

since there is no graveness in the charges, the petitioner was also not

kept under suspension, making the impugned punishment highly

unwarranted. It is further contended that no show-cause notice was

issued to the petitioner before the imposition of the impugned

punishment. As such, the impugned order contravenes Articles 14,

21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed to

allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned order

dated 24.05.2024.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents contended that the complaint against the petitioner

dated 17.08.2022 lodged by Mr. G. Tirupathi Nayak, alleged that the

petitioner was misusing his authority while allotting the duties by

collecting bribes, using filthy language towards women employees,

and also threatening and harassing the employees. The complaint

further alleged that the petitioner uttered the words, "nannu evaru

emi cheyalledu, nenu cheppindhey adhikarulu pani chestharu, ye

adhikari aina na maata vintadu, nenu koti rupayalu aasthulu

PK, J

koodpettanu". Upon receiving the said complaint, the matter was

entrusted to the Assistant Engineer (M) to conduct a preliminary

enquiry. Accordingly, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the

Assistant Engineer (M) submitted his preliminary enquiry report

dated 28.09.2022, wherein, prima facie was established. Based on

the said preliminary enquiry report and entire evidence available on

record, the Deputy Regional Manager, Karimnagar region, issued a

charge sheet to the petitioner on 09.03.2023, framing four charges

against him, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on

09.06.2023. However, having been dissatisfied with the same, the

respondents ordered to conduct a domestic enquiry into the charges

leveled against the petitioner. Accordingly, the enquiry officer

conducted the domestic enquiry providing ample opportunity to the

petitioner to present his case, and submitted the enquiry report on

16.09.2023. Thereafter, a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to

the petitioner, inviting his objections/comments, if any, and in

response, the petitioner submitted his objections on 07.12.2023,

which were deemed unconvincing, as the petitioner was found guilty

of the charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence, a show cause

notice for removal was also issued to the petitioner on 10.05.2024.

However, despite providing sufficient time to the petitioner for his

PK, J

explanation, he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. Thus,

based on the enquiry report, the respondents imposed the penalty of

removal from service on the petitioner vide proceeding dated

24.05.2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not

availed the alternate remedies available under law and the

Regulations of the respondent Corporation. Therefore, it is prayed to

dismiss the present writ petition.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival contentions made by

learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. A perusal of record discloses that disciplinary proceedings were

initiated against the petitioner based on a complaint lodged by one

Mr. G. Tirupathi Nayak on 17.08.2022. A preliminary enquiry was

conducted by the Assistant Engineer (M) of respondent No.3-Depot,

who submitted his preliminary enquiry report on 26.09.2022,

establishing a prima facie case against the petitioner. Consequently,

a charge sheet vide proceedings dated 09.03.2023, was issued by

respondent No.2, framing four charges against the petitioner. In

response, the petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the

charges, on 09.06.2023. However, having been dissatisfied with the

explanation of the petitioner, a domestic enquiry was ordered, and

PK, J

based on the enquiry report, the punishment of removal from service

vide impugned proceedings dated 24.05.2024, was imposed on the

petitioner. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the charges leveled

against the petitioner and the following is an excerpt of the said

charges.

"1. For having involved in police cases, lend/debt amount from the employees and demanding the bribe from employees as reported by the Complainants in enquiry which is serious mis-conduct and tarnished the image of Corporation under Regulation 18 and 28(xv) of TSRTC Employees(Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

2. For having used vulgar, filthy and un-parliamentary language as reported by the complainants in enquiry which is serious mis-conduct under Regulation 28 (xviii) and (xxxi) of TSRTC Employees(Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

3. For having misbehaved with lady employees as reported by the Complainant in enquiry which is serious mis-conduct under Regulation 28 (xv), (xxxi) and (xxxii) of TSRTC Employees(Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

4. For having used utter words on higher ups which is serious mis-conduct and tarnished the image of Corporation under Regulation 28(viii) & (xxxii) of TSRTC Employees(Conduct) Regulations, 1963."

PK, J

8. It is undisputedly clear from the above that the basis for

initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is the

complaint filed by Mr. G. Tirupathi Nayak dated 17.08.2022.

However, as can be seen from the record, the complainant himself

failed to appear before the enquiry officer to support the allegations

urged against the petitioner in his complaint dated 17.08.2022.

Further, it is pertinent to note that the charges 3 and 4 were explicitly

held as 'not proved', due to a lack of supporting evidence. The

findings of the enquiry officer regarding charge 3 indicate that no

witnesses came forward for providing their statements to substantiate

the said charge against the petitioner. As regards charge 4, the

enquiry officer has categorically held that the complainant himself

remained absent and that there is no evidence to prove the said

charge. Thus, those two charges were held as 'not proved'.

9. Admittedly, since the enquiry officer held the charges 3 and 4

as not proved on the main ground that the complainant himself was

not examined, the same logic ought to have been applied while

dealing with charges 1 and 2 as well. However, the enquiry officer,

without examining the complainant, held the charges as proved. This

failure to examine the complainant deprived the petitioner of a

PK, J

reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, thereby,

violating the principles of natural justice.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has

consistently held that an enquiry against a delinquent officer must be

conducted in a fair and transparent manner, ensuring that he is given

a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Hon'ble Apex Court

also held that the non-examination of the complainant during an

enquiry amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In

Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. and others 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court

held has follows:

"3. Before us the sole ground urged is as to the non- observance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant, Shri Virender Singh, and the witness, Jagdish Ram. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have brushed aside the grievance made by the appellant that the non-examination of those two persons have prejudiced his case. Examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. We do not think the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in thinking that non-examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant.

4. However, Shri Goel, the learned Additional Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh has submitted that there was other material which was sufficient to come to the conclusion one way of the other and he has taken us through the same. But while appreciating the evidence on record the impact of the testimony of the complainant

1 (1999) 8 SCC 582

PK, J

cannot be visualised. Similarly, the evidence of Jagdish Ram would also bear upon the state of inebriation, if any, of the appellant."

5. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no proper enquiry held by the authorities and on this short ground we quash the order of dismissal passed against the appellant by setting aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service. Considering the fact of a long lapse of time before the date of dismissal and reinstatement, and no blame can be put only on the door of the respondents, we think it appropriate to award 50 per cent of the back wages being payable to the appellant. We thus allow the appeal filed by the appellant. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

11. In Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others 2,

the Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observations:

"29. Rajpal Singh and Radhey Shyam who were the original complainants along with Shiv Kumar, were not examined and the enquiry officer, regarding their absence, has stated in his report as under:

"the two prosecution witnesses, Rajpal Singh and Radhey Shyam have not attended the proceeding. They have not been found residing in their village now and it had come to notice that the defaulter has managed their disappearance and has settled them somewhere in Devli Khanpur and also has arranged their employment but the addresses of those PWs are not known. Such is the act of the defaulter to create his defence and is an attempt to hide his misconduct, though their complaint, Ex. PW-1/A has been exhibited and has been taken on file to ascertain the facts and for natural justice."

41. Smt Meena Mishra, appearing as a witness for the Department, denied having made any payment to the appellant on that day. The labourers to whom the payment is said to have been made have not been produced at the domestic enquiry. Their so-called previous statement could not have been brought on record under Rule 16(3). As such, there was absolutely no evidence in support of the charge framed against the appellant and the entire findings recorded by the enquiry officer are vitiated by reason of the fact that they are not supported by any evidence on record and are wholly perverse.

2 (1999) 2 SCC 10

PK, J

42. The enquiry officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of "reasonable opportunity", contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The "bias" in favour of the Department had so badly affected the enquiry officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complaints was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur, their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the enquiry officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed "fix him up"."

12. Further, in Union of India v. Suresh Kumar Singh 3, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the judgment of a Division Bench

of the High Court at Patna with the following observations:

"10. The perusal of the record would clearly reveal that an opportunity was given by the appellate authority to the Enquiry Committee to examine the important witnesses. Even on remand, the said three witnesses were not examined.

11. In the absence of the examination of these three vital witnesses, the appellate authority found that the charges against the respondent were not fully proved and taking into consideration this aspect, the learned Single Judge allowed the petitioner and the Division Bench affirmed the same."

13. A perusal of charges 1 and 2 clearly shows that charges are

very vague and lack distinctness. As per the regulations of the

respondent Corporation, the charges must be definite, and the charge

sheet must include a list of documents and witnesses relied upon.

3 (2022) 7 SCC 675

PK, J

The record further reveals that the charge 1 was held 'proved' based

on an incident of 2017 i.e., FIR No.22 of 2017, which was registered

on the basis of a complaint from one Mr. Ganga Ram. However, it is

pertinent to note that the present charge sheet dated 09.03.2023, was

issued almost six years after the said incident, that too, relying on a

third-party complaint without even examining the original

complainant. Further, a close reading of charge 2 discloses that the

petitioner had used vulgar, filthy and unparliamentary language

against the complainant. However, since the complainant himself

was not examined, the enquiry officer ought not to have held the said

charge as proved.

14. The respondents have challenged the very maintainability of the

present writ petition, contending that the petitioner approached this

Court without first exhausting the alternative remedies available

under law. While it is, in fact, true that the existence of an alternative

remedy is a general rule for refraining to invoke the writ jurisdiction of

this Court, in a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and the

various High Courts have indubitably held that the mere existence of

an alternative remedy, particularly in cases where the fundamental

rights are at stake, does not constitute an absolute bar over the

exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

PK, J

Constitution of India and the High Court has the discretion whether

to entertain a writ petition or not, taking into consideration the facts

and circumstances of the case. In P. Laxmaiah v. Telangana State

Road Transport Corporation 4, a learned Single Judge of this Court

held as follows:

"6. As a matter of fact, in a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court took the view that mere existence of an alternative remedy is no bar for filing a writ petition. However, this Court, while entertaining a writ petition filed by the petitioner without availing alternative remedy, has to look into the facts of a particular case. If the method adopted byt eh department to deal with an employee and if the punishment ultimately inflicted shocks the conscience of the Court, more particularly when a major punishment is inflicted for a trivial misconduct, it would be appropriate on the part of this Court to entertain a writ petition filed invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instead of subjecting the employee to pursue the departmental remedies and also before the Industrial Tribunal years together."

15. In the instant case, there are serious infirmities in the conduct

of enquiry, as the very complainant was never examined by the

enquiry officer. Moreover, the findings of the enquiry officer are

contradictory, as charges 3 and 4 were held not proved due to lack of

evidence but charges 1 and 2 were held proved in spite of non-

examination of the complainant.

16. In the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that

imposition of an extreme penalty of removal from service is not

4 (2016) 5 ALT 416

PK, J

sustainable, and therefore, the impugned punishment order dated

24.05.2024 is liable to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the

impugned punishment order vide Proc.No.E1/114(1)/2022-RM:KR

dated 24.05.2024 issued by respondent No.2, and the respondents

are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, forthwith. It is

needless to say, the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages in

view of the 'no work, no pay' principle.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition,

shall stand closed. No costs.

_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 13.03.2025.

GSP