SUREPALLI NANDA
K. Shanker – Appellant
Versus
TSRTC – Respondent
ORDER:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents-RTC.
2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of respondent No.4 in imposing the punishment of reduction of petitioner’s pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as not on duty for all purposes as arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable by setting aside the Final order No.02/114(27) 2005 HYT, dated 23.12.2005 of the 4th respondent and consequential proceeding No. PA/20(229)/2007-HCR, dated 22.11.2007 of the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to restore the reduced increments of the petitioner with proper fixation and treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as on duty for all purposes.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
b) When the petitioner was performing duty on 26.07.2005 on the bus bearing No.AP9Z4839 of Hayathnagar Bus Depot, when the bus reached the bus depot, one of t
J. Durgappa v Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur and another
The court can modify disciplinary actions when found disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.