Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1782
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.
P.Kishandas –Appellant
Versus
The Depot Manager And 2 Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No.13003 of 2009
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Actions
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review - Limited scope - The court cannot interfere with administrative decisions unless they are illogical, procedurally improper, or shocking to the conscience. (Paras 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a bus conductor, was charged with failing to issue tickets and misappropriating fare, resulting in his removal from service after an enquiry. The Labour Court's dismissal of his appeal was contested in this writ petition.
Findings of Court:
No errors in the Labour Court's decision; the petitioner's guilt was evident from his admissions during the enquiry.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court properly dismissed the employee's appeal against his dismissal for misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The employee's own admissions during the enquiry demonstrated his misconduct; therefore, the dismissal was justified and the Labour Court acted within its authority.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V NARASIMHA GOUD
For the Respondent: R ANURAG SC FOR TSRTC
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding petitioner’s service and charges. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the labour court's findings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondents' counter arguments supporting dismissal. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. analysis of enquiry report and admissions of guilt. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. comparative assessment of the case against precedents. (Para 14) |
| 6. legal reasoning supporting dismissal of the petition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. conclusion rendering the writ petition dismissed. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER :
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2006 passed in I.D.No.26 of 2005 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’).
2. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-
(a) The petitioner joined the service of the respondents' Corporation as a Conductor on 21.01.1997 and his services were regularized on 01.01.1998. On 08.12.2003, while the petitioner was conducting the bus service in between Ieeja and Sindhanoor, a check was exercised at Stage No.10 i.e., Merridoddi and issued a memo alleging as follows :-
“(1) I forgotten to observe the rule of issue of tickets and start ;
(2) Collected Rs.13/- each from (2) passengers and not issued tickets to them who found travelling from Ieeja and Sindhanoor and
(3) closed the SR upto stage No.10.”
(b) The petitioner filed an explanation to the said charge memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent suspended the petitioner on 15.12.2003 and issued charge-sheet framing the following charges.
“1. For having failed to observe the rule issue and start which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.
2. For having collected an amount of Rs.26.00 at the boarding point Ieeja itself and failed to issue tickets to a batch of two (2) passengers, who were traveling without tickets from Ieeja to Sindhanoor (ex-stage Nos.8 to 15), which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.
3. For having closed the SR against the stage No.10 without issuing the tickets to above two passengers which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”.
(c) The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the charges levelled against him. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed order dated 17.04.2004 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2004. Challenging the order, dated 30.09.2004, the petitioner filed I.D.No.26 of 2005 before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed on 18.09.2006. Questioning the order, dated 18.09.2006, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the material on record. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that the passengers in question clearly deposed that due to their own fault, they could not tender the fare at the rate of Rs.13/- each inspite of conductor’s request. With regard to the said deposition, neither the enquiry officer sought any clarification nor the passengers in question were cross-examined by the TTIs.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not collected fare of Rs.13/- as alleged by the respondents. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer is nothing but perverse, as the petitioner has not issued tickets to the passengers in question for not tendering Rs.13/- each towards fare. The 1st respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed the order dated 17.04.2004 removing the petitioner from ser
