LawSphereX

CH.RAJASHEKHAR REDDY, HYD v. MD, TSRTC, HYD AND 4 OTHERS

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-07. CH.RAJASHEKHAR REDDY, HYD v. MD, TSRTC, HYD AND 4 OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on...

Judgment text

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO: 6231 OF 2016 Between: Ch. Rajashekhar Reddy, (Ch. R. S. Reddy), S/o. Ram Reddy, aged 57years, Occ: ADC, E. No. 104284, R/o. 2-86, Budda Nagar, Opp: Uppal Depot, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, l\/usheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional [t4anager, TSRTC, Secunderabad Region, J. B. S. , Secunderabad 3. The Divisional I\,4anager, TSRTC, Secunderabad Division, Ratifile, Secunderabad, 4. The Depot lVlanager, TSRTC, Bus Depot Chengicherla, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 5. The Depot lVlanager, TSRTC, Cantonment Depot, Cantonment, Secunderabad ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of removal from service issued in Proc. No. P1l'1(04y201S-CGCL, dated 24. 04. 2015, and Proc. No. PA/19(E. 114)12015- DVM. SD, dated 08. 06. 2015 of the 3rd respondent in so far as not granting all the consequential benefits and imposing the punishment and the action of the 2nd respondent in not disposing the petitioner revision petition dated 22. 07. 2015 submitted on 03. 08. 20'15 and not promoting the petitioner to the post of DC/Tl-lll on '14, par with his juniors colleagues as illegal, unjust, and in violation of Art.

16 & 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pray this HOn'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the all the consequential benefits, which he would have earned had the petitioner not removed from service in the interest of justice and fair play. WPMP. NO: 7930 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose the petitioner revision petition dated 22. 07. 2015 submitted on 03. 08. 2015 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play. PMP. NO: 7931 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of DC-Tl-lll on par with his juniors colleagues who were at Sl. No.

17 to 40 in the promotion Proc. NO. E4l2 55(1)12015- SR, dated 18. 12. 2015 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V . NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VASUDEVA REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER ]'HIl, HON'llLE SRI JLTSTICE ABHINAND KtIMAR S[{AVILI \\ RIT PETITIO\ \o. 6231 of 2016 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the lollowing reliel-: "... to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORAzu, quash the impugned order of removal lrom service issued in Proc. No. P 1/ I (04)2015-CGCL, dated 221. 04. 2015. and Proc. No. PAil9(E. l l4)/2015- DVM. SD. dated 08. 06. 2015 of the 3'd respondent in so lhr as not granting all the consequential benefits and inrposing the punishrnent and thc action of'thr' 2'"r rcsponclent in not disposirrg the petitioncr rcr ision pctition dated 22. 07. 1015 submitted on 03. 08.

10 l5 and not plornoting the pctitioner to lhc post ot Dclll-lll on par u'ith his. junior colleagues as illegal. unjust arrd in violation ol'Art. 14, 16 and 2l of the Constitution of India and consequcntly the petitioncr prays this Hon'ble Courl may lre plcased to direct thc respondcnts 1o extend all the consequential beneflts. r,vhich he would have earned had the petitioner not removed from service in the interest of justice and fair play. " Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vasudeva Reddy, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was working as a Driver and r,'tile so, the disciplinary authoritl' has initiated disciplinarl' proceedings agairlst him and he was rerrovecl ll'onl selvice r,irle orders dated 24. 04. 2015. Aggrieved b1' thc same, the pctitionel has plcf-erred irn appeal Lo responclent No. i - Dir. isional \\ I' \o 621 I 201r) l AKS. J Manager, and vide order dated 08. 06.

2015, the appeal preferred by the petitioner \\ias partly allou,ed and the punishnrent of rernor"al w,as modified to def'errnent ol annual increment for a period ol two vears ri, ith cunrLrlative cf-lect ar-rd thc period i'orn the clatc of removal to the date of perfbrr-nance of the first dutv on reinstatement at Depot \\ as clirected to be treated as in continuity in service tbr all purposcs. Challens. ing the said order. tl-re petitioner has plet'errecl a rer ision betbre rcspondent No. 2- Regional Manager on 22. 07. 2015 and the 'I'he same \\'as served on respondent No. 2 on 03. 08. 20 1 5. glievance ofthe petitioner is that though he prefen'ed revision on 22. 07. 20 15, respondent No. 2 has not disposed of the same till date. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition clirecting respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders on the revision preferred by the petitioner on 22. 01 . 20)5 within a leasonable period of time.

Standing Counsel appearine lbr the respondents hacl contenclecl that since rr--r isior. r prcfcrrcd b1, the pctitioncr 1S pcncling bctbre responclcnl No. 2. respondcnt No. l rvould consitler the sarnc anrl pass appropriatc orclers thcrcon in accolclarnce u,ith larv. l'his Court, having considered the rival submissions macle b1' leamed counsel for respective parties, is of the considered vieu, that this writ petition can be disposed of directing respondent No. 2 to consider the revision preferred by the petitioner on 22. 07. 2015 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable \\'P No. 623 I 2(,16 \KS,I period of ti'rc. prcf'e'abr' * ithin cighr *'eeks fionr thc datc or- reccilrL of a co1-r1, olthis order. \\'ith the above directions, rhe writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, ilany, shall stand closed. SD/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, 1.

The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, [t4usheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional ltlanager, TSRTC, Secunderabad Region, J. B. S. , Secunderabad. 3. The Divisional lvlanager, TSRTC, Secunderabad Division, Ratifile, Secunderabad. 4. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Bus Depot Chengicherla, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 5 The Depot [\/anager, TSRTC, Cantonment Depot, Cantonment, Secunderabad. 6 One CC to Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 7 One CC to Sri Vasudeva Reddy, SC for TSRTC, Advocate IOPUC] 8 Two CD Copies Sm HIGH COURT DATED:0711212020 1 HE STA 14: ( q g 1o DEr z{m C) l: t Ji r-O o €Sp. r. tCr\ ORDER WP. No. 6231 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.