THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.25766, 25767, 25851, 25897 and 25901 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Aggrieved by the impugned orders in Proc.No.P1/498(1)/2025-RR dated 30.06.2025, whereby, the petitioners have been placed under suspension, the present writ petitions are filed.

2. Since the lis in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are analogously heard together and are taken up disposal by way of this common order.

3. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners joined the services of the respondent Corporation as Driver and Conductors during 1991, and subsequently, got their services regularized. Thereafter, all the petitioners, except the petitioner in W.P.No.25897 of 2025, were promoted as Assistant Depot Clerks. While so, relying on some three documents, respondent No.2 has passed the present impugned orders dated 30.06.2025, placing the petitioners under suspension. However, when the petitioners requested to furnish the aforesaid three documents, instead of considering the same, respondent No.2 has issued individual charge sheets against the petitioners on 08.07.2025, alleging that they have misappropriated receivable cash proceeds by inflating HP and DPT Transactions, during their duties as Shift in-charge at HPCL Fuel Outlet at MYP-I Depot, and that they failed to submit relevant documents/proofs for the aforesaid HP and DPT Transactions. However, since the documents, referred to in the reference, were not furnished to the petitioners, they submitted their representations to respondent No.2 on 15.07.2025, requesting to furnish the relevant documents, which were served upon them through letter addressed by respondent No.2 dated 26.07.2025. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted their explanations on 04.08.2025, stating that the documents relating to receipt of daily cash, UPI/POS payments, HP Drive Track Plus and HP-Pay sale transaction, etc., and also the details of daily closing and opening readings of all nozzles are not furnished to ascertain the correctness or otherwise, have not been furnished. It is also stated that the duties entrusted upon the petitioners, who are working as ADCs and Conductor, are also not a part of the duties as per the Rules prescribed in the RTC Operational Manual, and if there was any discrepancy in the cash details, only the outsourcing employees would be responsible, as they were the individuals handling the Nozzle by collecting cash, online payments, etc. As such, denied the charges and requested to drop further action and also to revoke their suspension. However, without even considering the explanations of the petitioners and without even furnishing the aforesaid documents, the respondents are proceeding ahead with the disciplinary proceedings, due to which, the petitioners are facing much hardship in defending themselves.

5. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority of the post the petitioners are holding is the Junior Scale Officer, i.e., Depot Manager, and thus, if so warranted, respondent No.3 ought to have initiated any proceedings. However, the present proceedings are initiated by respondent No.2-Regional Manager, who is the reviewing authority under Regulation 29 of the TGSRTC (CC&A) Regulations, 1967. As such, the petitioners are being deprived of an opportunity of two-level appeal, i.e., appeal under Regulation 22 and a review under Regulation 29. Moreover, the petitioners are also being deprived of a third level appeal under Regulation 30, which amounts to denial of respective appeal rights. Therefore, the present impugned orders are unsustainable under law. It is further submitted that from the documents furnished to the petitioners, it is found that one Mr. Yedukondalu, Senior Assistant (F), E.No.270058