Telangana High Court
E. S.Kumar, E342180. Tsrtc Conductor, ... vs The T.S.R.T.C., Rep By Its Joint ... on 13 March, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 23717 OF 2017
O R D E R:
Petitioner-conductor in the State-owned Road
Transport Corporation, citing his failure to conduct the bus
properly which involved in a fatal accident, was imposed with
punishment of deferment of annual increment when next falls
due for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide
proceedings dated 15.10.1998 of the 3rd respondent - Depot
Manager which was modified by the 2nd respondent - Regional
Manager by order dated 20.06.2001 to that of one year which
shall have effect of postponing his future increments. Learned
counsel for petitioner Sri S.M. Subhan questions the said order
on the ground that punishment was imposed without
conducting regular departmental enquiry, as contemplated
under the APSRTC Employees' (CCA) Regulations. To justify the
said contention, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab
(1991 Supp. (1)(SCC) 504) and the judgment of Division Bench
of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 606 of 2009 dated 12.07.2017
which had taken into consideration the judgment of the Full
Bench of this Court in P.V. Narayana v. A.P. State Road
Transport Corporation 1.
2. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for
Corporation Sri N. Chandrasekhar submits that Writ Petition is
hit by delay and laches. He brought to the notice of this Court
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeals No.
1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2021 and submits
that Writ Petition be dismissed on the said ground.
3. The order sought to be impugned was dated
20.07.2001 and this Writ Petition was filed on 17.07.2017 i.e.
after sixteen years which, normally, is to be considered as
inordinate. In P.V. Narayana's case, the Full Bench of this
Court, considering the judgment in Kulwant Singh's case, in
detail, held that 'it is true that in some cases where the delay is
five years or so, the Supreme Court inclined to condone the delay
but under different circumstances when the fundamental rights
are violated or where the delay is not directly attributable to the
party seeking the relief or where the rights of the third parties are
not intervened or in matters where seniority of employees is not
finalised, the Court, would be justified to grant the relief; but not
2013 SCC Online AP 729
as a general rule of practice. Therefore, in our considered opinion,
Kulwant Singh Gills' case does not confer or clothe an
automatic right with the employee to challenge the order of the
authority at any time or whenever he wishes. The principles laid
down by the Apex Court governing the condonation of delay will
certainly and equally have application even in cases where
challenge is made to an order imposing the punishment contrary
to the Regulations or the ratio in Kulwant Singh Gill's case
(supra) where the employer had slept over the matter and had not
chosen to challenge it within a reasonable period of time. It may
also be noticed that in service matters, the Courts have applied
the rule of delay with greater rigor." In the light of the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeals referred to supra, opined that delay of 5 to 18 years was
held to be inordinate in preferring a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
4. In view of the above pronouncements, this Court,
straight away, without going into merits of the matter, holds
that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
6. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
13th March 2025
ksld
