Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. KANTHA RAO, J.
A. Ravinder Reddy & Others - Appellant
Versus
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Joint Managing Director & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 34544 of 2015
Decided on : 28-10-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation.
Headnote:
Trade Union Act, 1926 –Transport Corporation – Petitioners 1 to 3 are Head Constables and the petitioners 4 to 6 are constables in the respondent-Corporation. They formed TSRTC Security Staff Welfare Association, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act – First petitioner was elected as President of the said association and intimation regarding election of members of the association was sent to the respondent-Corporation. There are 400 members in the Association. After bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, a separate association by name Security Staff Welfare association was formed. As per the bye-laws of the Association, outsiders also can be elected as office bearers and accordingly, one was elected Chief Adviser. Subsequently, he was elected as the State Honorary President 2nd petitioner is working as the State Vice President 3rd petitioner is also working as the State Vice President, the 4th petitioner is working as Secretary, the 5th petitioner is working as President and the 6th petitioner is working as the Vice President Zone. While so, the second respondent issued a notice to the 1st, the 4th and the 5th petitioners alleging that one who is an outsider, submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of complaining against the officers of the respondent-Corporation –Held, On careful examination of the facts of the present case, obviously, the Advisor of Security Staff Welfare Association sent complaints to the Chief Minister against some of the officials and filed writ petition before this Court, demanding action against them second respondent issued notice to petitioners 1 to 3 alleging some misconduct that at their behest, a third party was levelling false allegations against the officials of the respondent-Corporation, for which they replied. These incidents preceded the transfer orders court has to examine the issue having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case to find out as to whether there exists any legal malice while passing the impugned orders of transfer. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the orders of transfer are illegal, it can certainly interfere with the same in exercise of powers of judicial review way in which the transfer orders were passed contrary to the circular instructions, which have been referred herein above, coupled with the back drop of the transfer proceedings clearly indicates existence of legal malice while passing the said orders of transfer. Further, they are made in the middle of the academic year, which is contrary to the circular instructions issued by the respondent-Corporation. Therefore impugned transfer orders are liable to be set aside – Writ Petition is allowed.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.
2. The petitioners 1 to 3 are Head Constables and the petitioners 4 to 6 are constables in the respondent-Corporation. They formed TSRTC Security Staff Welfare Association, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act. The first petitioner was elected as President of the said association on 26.04.2015 and intimation regarding election of members of the association was sent to the respondent-Corporation. There are 400 members in the Association. After bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, a separate association by name Telangana RTC Security Staff Welfare association was formed. As per the bye-laws of the Association, outsiders also can be elected as office bearers and accordingly, one Prabhakar Rao was elected as Zonal Chief Adviser. Subsequently, he was elected as the State Honorary President. The 2nd petitioner is working as the State Vice President, the 3rd petitioner is also working as the State Vice President, the 4th petitioner is working as Zonal Secretary, the 5th petitioner is working as President and the 6th petitioner is working as the Zonal Vice President of Karimnagar Zone. While so, the second respondent issued a notice on 19.09.2015 to the 1st, the 4th and the 5th petitioners alleging that one Prabhakar Reddy, who is an outsider, submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of Telangana complaining against the officers of the respondent-Corporation.
3. Subsequently, when it was brought to the notice of the association, it convened a meeting and expelled the said Prabhakar on 30.08.2015 and the same was also published in Telugu Daily newspapers. Further, the 2nd respondent bent upon victimizing the office bearers of the association for obvious reasons and not relishing the welfare activities being carried on by the office bearers of the Association. With regard to the notice issued by the respondent-Corporation alleging misconduct, the petitioners submitted an explanation and the respondents, who are fully aware of the allegations levelled against the petitioners adopted a device by transferring office bearers of the Association under the guise of administrative grounds. Further, the transfer orders issued by the 2nd respondent are not tenable and they are nothing but act of victimization and unfair labour practice. The transfer cannot be resorted by way of punishment in relation to some alleged misconduct. The respondents ought not to have transferred any employee on the pretext of administrative grounds. As far as the constables are concerned, they have to work within the region, but not outside. The transfer of constables i.e., petitioners 4 to 6 is ex facie invalid and without any jurisdiction. Even as per the Circular issued by the respondent-Corporation, the transfer orders would not have been given effect to in the middle of the academic year, as the children of the employees are studying in various schools and colleges and it would disturb the family and cause mental agony to the children and transferring the petitioners on administrative reasons are totally not bona fide and it is only to victimize the office bearers of the Association and to wreck vengeance for the complaint lodged by Honorary President of the Association. It is further submitted that the Chief Adviser of Security Staff Welfare Association filed W.P.No.5228 of 2015 and this Court directed the respondents to look into the representation submitted by the Chief Adviser of Security Staff and Welfare Association and take necessary action within a period of eight weeks. But the respondents did not respond the interim order granted by this Court and resorted to transfer the petitioners, which is punitive in nature. Hence, the writ petition.
4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents inter alia contending that after bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, APSRTC has b
