Telangana High Court

Sri.Md.Magdum Miya vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 21 November, 2025

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                 WRIT PETITION NO.20532 OF 2025
ORDER:

Seeking to declare the order of suspension dated 23.06.2025

vide Case No.01/2(5)/2025-MHBD issued by respondent No.2

placing the petitioner under suspension without therebeing any

legal evidence on record, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory,

violative of principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India, the present Writ Petition is

filed.

2) Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Sri N.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel,

appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on

29.05.2025, while the petitioner was operating the second trip of

bus bearing No.TG 17Z0051 from Warangal to Mahabubabad Bus

Depot at about 1645 hours at Warangal Bus Station/Stand after

boarding of the passengers, the conductor gave a signal to move

the bus. Accordingly, the petitioner has reversed the bus and 2 PK, J wp_20532_2025

started moving slowly from the platform of the bus station. At that

time, one lady passenger has boarded the bus for Thorrur. When

she was informed by the co-passengers that the bus was not going

to Thorrur, she suddenly and abruptly jumped from the bus and

fell under the bus in the Bus Station, due to which, she sustained

injuries to her leg. Immediately, she was shifted to hospital.

Therefore, no misconduct is committed by the petitioner and

absolutely there is no negligence on his part. However, basing on

the report dated 20.06.2025 of the Joint Accident Committee (in

short 'JAC'), wherein, respondent No.2 herein is also a member, the

suspension order dated 23.06.2025 and also the charge sheet

dated 23.06.2025 are issued to the petitioner, with a

predetermined mind, opining that prima facie case is established.

Therefore, the whole action of the respondents is illegal, invalid and

vitiated.

3.1) It is further submitted that one Md. Ghouse, TI-II, has

deposed evidence before the preliminary enquiry officer that the

lady passenger, without informing the conductor and driver, has

jumped from the bus and the mistake is on the part of said lady.

However, without properly appreciating the said evidence, 3 PK, J wp_20532_2025

respondent No.2, who is also a member of JAC, has placed the

petitioner under suspension vide order dated 23.06.2025 contrary

to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.4745 of 1999, dated

13.03.2003. Learned counsel has further contended that as per

clause-II of Circular No.PO-10/2002, dated 09.03.2002, of the

respondent-Corporation, in case of accidents, drivers need not

immediately be placed under suspension soonafter occurrence of

the accident, unless it is a case of death where the driver is found

guilty of rash and negligent driving resulting in death and where

the police prosecution is likely to result in conviction. But, in case

of the petitioner, there is no negligence on his part and he has not

driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. It is further

contended that though respondent No.1 has initiated disciplinary

proceedings also against the conductor and issued charge sheet

dated 23.06.2025, the respondents have suspended the petitioner

alone selectively leaving the conductor, who is also responsible for

the incident occurred. Therefore, the action of the respondents is

illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural

justice and amounts to discrimination.

4 PK, J wp_20532_2025

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

on receipt of the information during the second trip at 1645 hours,

while the petitioner was at Warangal bus station and after boarding

of the passengers, while he was reversing the bus from station

premises to move outside, one lady passenger boarded the bus for

traveling to Thorrur. But, when she realized that the bus was not

going to Thorrur, she attempted to alight from the bus. In that

process, she went under the left rear tyre of the bus and the left

tyre of the bus ran over her left leg, due to which, she sustained

severe injuries to her leg. Immediately, the injured was shifted to

Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Warangal, information was

given to the Station Manager and the local police officials and a

case in FIR No.216/2025 dated 30.05.2025 has been registered at

Inthezargunj police station, Warangal. Further, on 07.06.2025, the

lady was succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.

Learned Standing Counsel has contended that the JAC consisting

of the Depot Manager of Mahabubabad and Hanamkonda Depots,

convened a meeting on 20.06.2025 at Warangal, and thoroughly

examined the Preliminary Enquiry Report dated 17.06.2025

submitted by the Deputy Superintendent (Traffic), Mahabubabad 5 PK, J wp_20532_2025

Depot, along with the evidence available on record. Basing on the

said findings, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending

disciplinary action. Further the JAC, after an independent and

careful evaluation of the material evidence, has concluded that a

prima facie case was established against the petitioner. It is

further contended that though the passenger has alighted the bus

without informing the driver and conductor, it is the primary

responsibility of the driver to ensure safety of the passengers

during boarding/alighting and physical movements of the bus

within bus station and other traffic zone areas and the driver is

expected to cautiously observe the passengers before moving or

reversing the bus. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to

observe the movements of the lady passenger, who attempted to

alight from the bus resulting in the unfortunate accident.

Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the gravity

of negligence and past service record of the petitioner and based on

the report of JAC, found that the petitioner was responsible for

gross negligence in discharging his duties as a driver. Hence, the

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while

placing him under suspension, in terms of Circular No.PD-91/91 6 PK, J wp_20532_2025

dated 21.10.1991 and following the procedure contemplated in the

Circulars. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that

suspension order is predetermined merely because the same Depot

Manager, who was part of the JAC, has issued the order of

suspension is wholly misconceived, untenable and contrary to the

internal disciplinary frame work of the Corporation. Learned

Standing Counsel has further submitted that the Enquiry Officer

has concluded the enquiry and submitted the Enquiry Report

dated 23.09.2025 holding that the charges are proved. Therefore,

there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

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

respective counsel and perused the material on record.

6) As can be seen from the record, the petitioner was placed

under suspension vide impugned order dated 23.06.2025 and

departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by

respondent No.2. Admittedly, the accident was occurred at

Warangal Bus Station on 29.05.2025 at about 1645 hours while

the petitioner was reversing the bus from station premises and 7 PK, J wp_20532_2025

moving outside of the bus station, which led to death of that lady

passenger. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension

basing on the Joint Accident Committee Report dated 20.06.2025

and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide

impugned proceedings. Further, a perusal of the report dated

20.06.2025 reveals that the Committee has concluded that all the

three persons i.e. driver, conductor and lady passenger are

responsible for the accident. Further, during the course of

arguments, the learned Standing Counsel has placed before this

Court a copy of the Enquiry Report dated 23.09.2025. Relevant

portion of the said report reads as under:

"On careful examination of all records, it is evident that the lady passenger's own negligence in jumping from the bus without informing the crew was the primary cause of the mishap. However, as per the duties prescribed under the TGSRTC regulations, the driver is bound to exercise utmost care and caution while moving the bus inside bus station premises and the conductor is required to remain at the door until the vehicle moves out to prevent any unsafe alighting by passengers. In this case, the driver failed to anticipate passenger movement and the conductor failed to discharge her responsibility at the door. Therefore, the accident is attributable to the negligence of all three

- the passenger, the driver, and the conductor."

8 PK, J wp_20532_2025

7) The said report reveals that all the three are responsible for

the alleged accident occurred. In spite of the same, petitioner alone

is placed under suspension leaving the conductor, which amounts

to discrimination and selective suspension and the same is bad in

law.

8) It is well settled principle of law, as enshrined under Article

14 of the Constitution of India, that discriminatory treatment

among similarly situated individuals is impermissible. In a catena

of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has

consistently held that the selective suspension of one or more

individuals involved in the same set of allegations/incidents, while

retaining others in service, cannot be permitted, as it amounts to

discrimination and arbitrary treatment.

9) Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in K.Sukhendar Reddy v. State of Andhra

Pradesh 1 wherein it was held as under:

"7. Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of senior IAS officers, even senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothing positive or definite

1 (1999) 6 SCC 257 9 PK, J wp_20532_2025

can be said as yet as the investigation is likely to take time. The matter is pending with the police since 1-12-1996 when the FIR was lodged at Anakapallil Police Station. The investigation has not been completed although about two-and-a-half years have passed. We do not know how long it will take to complete the investigation. That be so, the officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where may more senior officers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. It cannot be permitted to place an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their higher status in the service hierarchy, would be taken."

(emphasis added)

10) In view of the above settled proposition of law, this Court is of

the view that the impugned suspension order dated 23.06.2025 is

not sustainable on the ground of selective suspension and

therefore liable to be set aside.

11) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned

suspension order dated 23.06.2025 is set aside. Further, the

respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service 1 PK, J wp_20532_2025

forthwith. However, this order does not preclude the authorities

from proceeding further in pursuance to the Enquiry Report dated

23.09.2025, strictly in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.