[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Ch. Babu, R.R.Dist vs The Depot Manager, R.R.Dist on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Dated this the 25th day of March 2026
WRIT PETITION No.19236 of 2008
Between:
Ch. Babu .. Petitioner
AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, H.C.U. Depot, Gachibowli, R.R.
District.
.. Respondent
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition has been filed to quash the
impugned award passed by the Labor Court-I, Hyderabad, on
20.09.2006 in I.D. No. 231 of 2004 in holding the domestic
enquiry as valid, as well as impugned award dated
15.06.2007 in I.D. No. 231 of 2004 in upholding the order of
removal from service as valid. Consequently, direct the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service along with
all consequential benefits including back wages.
2. Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing
counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Petitioner joined the services of the respondent's
Corporation as conductor on 19.02.1986. Subsequently, his
services were also regularized w.e.f. 28.11.1986. While so, he
was removed from service by the respondent vide order dated
23.03.2003. After rejection of appeal and review vide
respective orders dated 19.05.2003 & 22.12.2003, the
petitioner raised I.D. No.231 of 2004 before the Labor Court-I,
Hyderabad explaining the following facts.
(b) While the petitioner was conducting the bus
service on 09.06.2002 on route No. 216 from Lingampally to
Koti ex-stages 6 to 20, a check was affected at stage No.18
and issued memo alleging certain irregularities. In the said
charge memo, the petitioner was asked to submit explanation
within seven days which expires on 16.06.2002. But in the
mean while, the respondent has suspended the petitioner
from service on 13.06.2002 and issued chargesheet dated
13.06.2002 alleging the following charge:
CHARGE:
Checked your bus found one passenger traveling with
ticket No.027/944831 of Rs.7/- denomination who
boarded the bus at Lingampally and bound for
Mehdipatnam cross Roads, ex-stage 6-16, but in your SR
Rs.7/- opening No. 027/944848 of Rs.7/- denomination.
The above Rs.7/- denomination ticket No. 027/944831
issued previous day ticket. Hence taken TPT
No.027/944877 of Rs.7/- denomination. In this
connection, TTIs of HES/HYD confiscated your SR and
issued new SR on reissue charge, which constitutes
misconduct in terms of Regulations 28(xxiii) of APSRTC
Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.
(c) For the above charge, the petitioner submitted a
letter dated 14.06.2002 to furnish him the relevant
documents so as to submit explanation to the chargesheet.
But without considering the above reasonable request, the
respondent has ordered an enquiry. On receiving the enquiry
notice, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 24.08.2002 to
the enquiry officer to furnish him with relevant documents.
Though the enquiry officer received the letter, but he did not
furnish the documents. Apart from that, another letter dated
12.11.2002 was also submitted to the enquiry officer to
summon the (2) checking officials as well as the passengers in
question. Though the enquiry officer received the said letter,
but not considered. As such, he submitted representations
on 07.12.2002 & 25.12.2002 respectively. However, without
considering the above, the enquiry officer conducted the
enquiry ex parte.
(d) Based on the ex parte enquiry report, the
respondent issued show cause notice of removal and
thereafter he passed the order of removal from service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
enquiry officer without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner to participate in the enquiry straight away came to
the conclusion that charge levelled against him is proved and
proposed the punishment of removal. Thereafter, the
petitioner raised the dispute. At the time of raising the
dispute U/s. 2-A(2) petition dated 12.12.2004, the petitioner
filed list of documents enclosing (20) documents. In view of
the above denial of reasonable opportunity in the enquiry as
well as other proceedings, the petitioner requested the
Tribunal to hold the enquiry as invalid. But the Tribunal
without considering the pleading as well as documents filed
along with petition, has held the enquiry as valid vide order
dated 20.09.2006, and subsequently, the impugned award is
passed upholding the punishment of removal in an arbitrary
manner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the Tribunal has passed the impugned orders contrary to the
material available on record and the probabilities of the case.
Though the Tribunal marked the documents (10) out of (20)
documents filed by the petitioner, those documents were not
at all considered while passing the impugned award in
upholding the order of removal and also not considered while
deciding the domestic enquiry as preliminary issue. Therefore,
the court below committed an error which is apparent on the
face of the record. The Tribunal ought to have considered that
right from beginning the petitioner has been requesting that
he did not issue the ticket in question and the statement said
to have been written by the passengers in Hindi was also not
known to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the statement so collected was also not in conformity with the
checking rules prescribed in MTD 267 as it should contain
full details of the passengers said to have been found
ticketless along with the two independent witnesses with their
full details. The Tribunal ought to have considered due to
non- considering the representation submitted to the enquiry
officer as well as to the respondent, the petitioner could not
attend the enquiry and thereby he was deprived with the
reasonable opportunity to put fourth his case. Accordingly,
prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
7. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent has
contended that the petitioner is bereft of any clean record of
service. He was placed under suspension on 30.09.1987 and
was removed on 02.01.1988. He was awarded the
punishment of deferment of his increment for 3 months
without cumulative effect on 01.03.2000. A charge memo was
issued to the petitioner on 09.06.2002 but he had not
submitted his explanation and informed that he would submit
explanation at a later date. In view of the seriousness of the
case, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was
issued with a chargesheet. When the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 24.08.2002 for supply of certain
documents, the documents sought for, were available in the
case and the same were handed over to the petitioner on the
same day.
8. Learned Standing counsel further submits that the
enquiry officer sent two letters to the petitioner by RPAD to
attend the enquiry on 28.08.2002 and 16.11.2002
respectively. But he failed to attend the enquiry even after
receipt of the documents such as way bill dated 09.06.2002.
As the petitioner was dodging to attend the enquiry on some
reason or other, the enquiry officer sent an enquiry notice on
16.12.2002 to attend the enquiry on 30.12.2002 otherwise ex
parte enquiry would be conducted. As no acknowledgement
was received, the letter was displayed on the notice board.
The petitioner did not attend the enquiry on 30.12.2002.
Hence an ex parte enquiry was conducted and a report was
submitted holding the charge levelled against the petitioner
proved.
9. Learned Standing counsel further submits that the
disciplinary authority after following the procedure, removed
the petitioner from service on 22.03.2003. The appeal and
review petitions were also rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner
raised a dispute I.D.No.231/2004 before the Labour Court-I,
Hyderabad. By its award dated 15.06.2007 the learned
Labour court confirmed the removal order. The learned
Labour court found that from the evidence of the checking
officials and the ticket found with the passenger, it is clear
that the petitioner had reissued the ticket bearing
No.027/944831 for a sum of Rs.7/- and appropriated the
amount for himself and there are no grounds to interfere with
the findings of the enquiry officer and dismissed the claim
petition. There are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to
dismiss the same.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
10. The present case at hand is that, the petitioner is found
committed serious misconduct of cash and ticket irregularity.
Ticket bearing No.027/944831 of Rs.7/- denomination found
with the passenger, who boarded the bus at Lingampally and
bounded for Mehdipatnam "X" roads. The allegation of the
respondent is that the ticket issued by the petitioner is of the
previous day. The petitioner failed to submit any explanation
to the chargesheet though he acknowledged the receipt of the
charge sheet. Per contra, the contention of the petitioner is
that he submitted a letter dated 14.06.2002 to furnish him
the relevant documents so as to submit explanation to the
chargesheet. But without considering the above reasonable
request, the respondent had ordered an enquiry. On receiving
the enquiry notice, the petitioner submitted a letter dated
24.08.2002 to the enquiry officer to furnish him with relevant
documents. Though the enquiry officer received the letter, but
he did not furnish the documents. Apart from that, another
letter dated 12.11.2002 was also submitted to the enquiry
officer to summon the two checking officials as well as the
passengers in question. Though the enquiry officer received
the said letter, but not considered. As such, he submitted
representations on 07.12.2002 & 25.12.2002 respectively. To
fortify his contention, the petitioner has filed all the above
representations before the Tribunal and the same were
marked as exhibits. However, without considering the above,
the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry ex parte.
11. Though the respondent contended that the enquiry
officer sent two letters to the petitioner by RPAD to attend the
enquiry on 28.08.2002 and 16.11.2002 respectively. But he
failed to attend the enquiry even after receipt of the
documents such as way bill dated 09.06.2002. As the
petitioner was dodging to attend the enquiry on some reason
or other, the enquiry officer sent an enquiry notice on
16.12.2002 to attend the enquiry on 30.12.2002 otherwise ex
parte enquiry would be conducted. As no acknowledgement
was received, the letter was displayed on the notice board.
The petitioner did not attend the enquiry on 30.12.2002.
Hence an ex parte enquiry was conducted and a report was
submitted holding the charge levelled against the petitioner
proved. But, no such documents were exhibited before the
Tribunal. As such, the contention of the respondent is
negatived.
12. In view of the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed
from service by the respondent vide order dated 23.03.2003.
After rejection of appeal and review vide respective orders
dated 19.05.2003 & 22.12.2003, the petitioner raised I.D.
No.231 of 2004 before the Labor Court-I, Hyderabad. While
approaching the Labour Court, the petitioner enclosed 20
documents in order to show as to how the respondent has
deprived the petitioner to reasonable opportunity right from
suspension from service to conducting ex parte enquiry. The
Labour Court confirmed the order of removal.
13. A perusal of the Labour Court's Award shows that there
is no discussion with regard to the documents filed by the
petitioner for his grievance. The Labour Court also simply
confirmed the Appellate and Revisional order without
assigning any reasons. However, issuance of a ticket Rs.7/-
denomination of the previous day to one of the passengers,
amounts to cash and ticket irregularity. For such a minor
irregularity, dismissal from service is too harsh a
punishment, and this justifies the Court's intervention.
14. The re-issuing of the previous day's ticket and upon
proving the charges, the department would have imposed
other than the removal from service, which comes under
harsh punishment. There are certain guidelines while
imposing the harsh punishment against the employees.
Though it is a serious misconduct of the petitioner, it has to
be proved in a proper manner. In the present case, the
petitioner submitted documents showing his grievance
against the departmental proceedings, but the Labour Court
did not consider it in any angle. Without considering the said
documents and the analysis of the appeal and revisional
orders, simply confirmed the said order, and the same is not
tenable. As such, the Award passed by the Labor Court-I,
Hyderabad, on 15.06.2007 in I.D. No. 231 of 2004 in
upholding the order of removal from service as valid, is set
aside.
15. It is the case of 2008 and the relief sought by the
petitioner is reinstatement and at the time of filing of the Writ
Petition, the petitioner was aged 44 years. At this juncture,
reinstatement of the petitioner does not arise. However, a
direction to the respondent authorities to pay 25% of the back
wages only to the petitioner from the date of his removal till
his date of superannuation, would meet the ends of justice.
16. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petition
is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to pay 25%
of the back wages only to the petitioner from the date of his
remo8val till his date of superannuation in accordance with
law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 25.03.2026
BDR
