A higher authority cannot enhance disciplinary penalties without an appeal from the employee, as procedural safeguards must be observed to ensure justice.

ORDER :

Pulla Karthik, J.

This writ petition is filed to declare the review show cause notice No:Steno/19(64)/2018-DVM:ADB, dated 24.12.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent enhancing the penalty of deferment of increment for a period of one year which shall have its effect on future increments to that of removal from service, as arbitrary, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short, “the Regulations”).

2. Heard A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri U. Shanti Bushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”) for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was performing duty on Bus bearing No. TS 01Z 0114 on route from Hyderabad to Adilabad, one passenger travelling up to Adilabad has purchased Ticket No.A21449 by paying fare of Rs.523/- and luggage Ticket No.A21450 for 6 units of luggage of Ghobinara by paying Rs.84/-. When the bus reached Gudihathnoor, a surprise check was conducted and basing on the report submitted by TTIs, the 3rd respondent issued charge sheet dated 19.07.2018 alleging that the petitioner allowed unaccompanied luggage by collecting Rs.316/- and placed him petitioner under suspension on the same day. On 23.07.2018, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet. However, without considering the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered and basing on the enquiry report dated 22.10.2018 and after considering the objections filed by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent issued order dated 15.11.2018 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year which shall have its effect on his future increments and placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 15.11.2018 duly treating the period as not on duty for all purposes and directed him to report before the 2^nd respondent for further posting orders. Accordingly, on 16.11.2018, the petitioner reported before the 2^nd respondent for further posting orders, but the 2^nd respondent without issuing any posting order and without paying the salary to the petitioner, issued the impugned review show cause notice dated 24.12.2018 enhancing the penalty of deferment of increment for a period of one year which shall have its effect on future increments to that of removal from service and the petitioner was directed to submit reply within one week.

4. Learned counsel further submits that without there being any appeal filed by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent cannot interfere with the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent. As per Regulation 29 of the Regulations, the authority higher than the appellate authority can revise any order under disciplinary proceedings and as per the said regulation, the power of revision lies with Regional Manager, Adilabad, who is the higher authority to the 2^nd respondent, and the power of review lies with the Corporation and Executive Directors in cases of employees where penalty of removal was imposed. Therefore, the impugned show cause issued by the 2^nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

5. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of this Court in W.P.Nos.15528 of 2007 and 11131 of 1983, dated 01.10.2018 and 19.11.1987 respectively and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vikram Singh Rana vs. State of M.P. , 2007 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 293 (M.P.). , dated 20.04.2006.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that while the petitioner was working as TIM Driver of Adilabad Depot committed cas