[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Syed Jahangir, Hyderabad vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyderabad ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.4111 of 2007
DATED: 26th MARCH, 2026
Between:
Syed Jahangir (died) rep by LRs i.e. Smt. Rafath Jahan
and 4 others ...Petitioners
AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Falaknuma Depot,
Hyderabad and another ...Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 26.03.2026
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?
3. Whether her Ladyship/ Lordship wish to : Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment ?
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.4111 of 2007
DATED: 26th MARCH, 2026
Between:
Syed Jahangir (died) rep by LRs i.e. Smt. Rafath Jahan
and 4 others ...Petitioners
AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Falaknuma Depot,
Hyderabad and another ...Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Mohd. Yousufuddin, learned
Counsel
For Respondents : Ms. NSV Janaki, learned counsel rep.
Mr.R.Anurag, Standing Counsel for
Telangana State Road Transport
Corporation.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.4111 of 2007
DATED: 26th MARCH, 2026
Between:
Syed Jahangir (died) rep by LRs i.e. Smt. Rafath Jahan
and 4 others ...Petitioners
AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Falaknuma Depot,
Hyderabad and another ...Respondents
O R D E R:
The petitioner No.1 filed the present Writ Petition challenging
the Award dated 04.10.2004 passed by the Labour Court, whereby
the Labour Court upheld the removal order dated 01.10.1990.
During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner No.1 died
and his legal heirs, i.e. the petitioner Nos.2 to 6, were brought on
record. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner No.1 is
hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner".
02. Heard Mr. Mohd. Yousufuddin, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Ms. NSV Janaki, learned counsel appearing for Sri
R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road
Transport Corporation and perused the record.
03. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Driver on
10.02.1976 and was terminated from service on certain misconduct.
Subsequently, he was reinstated into service as a fresh Driver with
effect from 31.03.1982 as per the orders of the Divisional Manager.
While so, the petitioner was granted leave for 45 days from
03.06.1990 to 17.07.1990. However, he did not report for duty on
18.07.1990 and remained unauthorizedly absent from that date
onwards. In view of the same, a charge sheet dated 27.08.1990
was issued to the petitioner, but the same was returned unserved.
Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner was
informed to attend the enquiry scheduled on 07.09.1990 at 10.00
a.m., but the said notice was also returned unserved. The Inquiry
Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report holding the
charges as proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated
13.09.1990 proposing the punishment of removal from service was
issued to the petitioner. As there was no response from the
petitioner, he was removed from service by order dated 01.10.1990.
Subsequently, on 22.09.1993, the petitioner submitted a
representation to the respondents-RTC requesting a copy of the
removal order, which was furnished to him on 24.09.1993.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Industrial Dispute on 22.04.1996,
i.e. after about two and a half years from the date of receipt of the
removal order. Despite taking as many as ten adjournments, the
petitioner did not appear before the Labour Court to prosecute the
matter and the same was ultimately dismissed on 16.12.1997 for
non-representation. Thereafter, after a lapse of about six years, the
petitioner filed I.A.No.118 of 2004 on 07.04.2004 seeking to
condone the delay of 2301 days in filing an application to set aside
the ex-parte order of dismissal and to restore the Industrial Dispute.
Upon consideration, the Labour Court dismissed the Industrial
Dispute. Aggrieved by the said Award dismissing the Industrial
Dispute, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
04. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Labour
Court relied on the ex-parte enquiry report, though not even a single
witness was examined by the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the
impugned Award is not sustainable in law. It is further contended
that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry without affording
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner also
contends that the notices sent to him were returned unserved by the
postal authorities with the endorsement "No such person is
available in the house", and despite the same, the inquiry was
conducted. Hence, the impugned Award is liable to be set aside.
05. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the corporation contends that, upon appreciation of
the entire material available on record, the Tribunal rightly found
that the petitioner was continuously absent unauthorisedly and that
there was no reasonable explanation for such absence from
18.07.1990 for years together. It is further observed that the inquiry
was conducted by following the prescribed procedure and that the
petitioner was rightly removed from service. Therefore, the Tribunal
rightly dismissed the Industrial Dispute.
06. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and
perused the material available on record. It is evident from the
record that the petitioner was granted leave for a period of 45 days
from 03.06.1990 to 17.07.1990. However, the petitioner did not
report for duty on 18.07.1990 and remained unauthorizedly absent
thereafter. A charge sheet dated 27.08.1990 was issued to the
petitioner; however, the same was returned unserved. Thereafter,
an Inquiry Officer was appointed and notice was issued to the
petitioner informing him to attend the enquiry scheduled on
07.09.1990. The said notice was also returned unserved with the
endorsement of the postal authorities stating that no such person
was available in the house. In spite of the same, the Inquiry Officer
proceeded with the enquiry and ultimately submitted a report
holding the charges as proved. Based on the said enquiry report, a
show cause notice dated 13.09.1990 proposing the punishment of
removal from service was issued to the petitioner. As the petitioner
failed to submit any explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an
order removing him from service on 01.10.1990.
07. It is to be noted that the petitioner submitted a
representation only on 22.09.1993 seeking a copy of the removal
order, which was furnished to him on 24.09.1993. However, the
petitioner raised the Industrial Dispute only on 22.04.1996, after a
delay of about two and a half years. Even thereafter, despite
obtaining several adjournments before the Labour Court, the
petitioner failed to appear and prosecute the matter and
consequently the industrial dispute was dismissed on 16.12.1997
for non-representation. Thereafter, after a lapse of about six years,
the petitioner filed I.A.No.118 of 2004 seeking condonation of delay
of 2301 days to set aside the ex parte order and restore the
industrial dispute. The Labour Court, upon appreciation of the
entire material available on record, came to the conclusion that the
petitioner remained continuously absent without authorization and
failed to offer any reasonable explanation for such prolonged
absence. The Labour Court further found that the departmental
enquiry was conducted by following the prescribed procedure and
that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be
said to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the
petitioner.
08. Further, it is apparent that the petitioner has not
impleaded the Labour Court, which passed the impugned Award, as
a respondent in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner has neither
assigned any reason for such non-impleadment nor offered any
explanation for not making the Labour Court a party to the
proceedings.
09. Be that as it may, it is to be noted that even in the
present Writ Petition, except questioning the procedure followed by
the respondent authorities and Labour Court, the petitioner has not
furnished any plausible explanation, either by way of oral or
documentary evidence, for his unauthorized absence. The conduct
of the petitioner in not reporting for duty after expiry of leave, in not
approaching the respondent authorities after returning from his
native place, in not even specifying the nature of illness suffered by
him, and in approaching the authorities for a copy of the removal
order only after more than two and a half years, clearly indicates
lack of diligence on his part. Further, the petitioner approached the
Labour Court with considerable delay and thereafter remained
absent and failed to prosecute the industrial dispute. These
circumstances lend support to the presumption drawn by the Labour
Court that the petitioner might have abandoned his employment
with the respondent authorities and left for some other place for
better prospects and earnings.
10. In the above view of the matter, this Court does not find
any illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the findings recorded by
the Labour Court warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Apart from the misconduct proved against the
petitioner, the conduct of the petitioner in approaching the Labour
Court with considerable delay and in not prosecuting the industrial
dispute diligently also disentitles him from seeking any relief. In the
absence of any valid ground to interfere with the impugned Award
passed by the Labour Court, this Court is of the considered view
that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit.
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:26.03.2026
Ksk/khrm
