THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

ORDER:

Heard Mr.G.Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC for respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver in the respondent corporation in 1995. While he was discharging his duties, he submitted a leave application informing the authorities about his aunt's health condition and requested to sanction one month leave. However, the 4th respondent issued a charge sheet on 07.07.2014, alleging unauthorized absence from 26.05.2014 to 07.07.2014, without prior intimation, to which the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation on 22.07.2014. The 4^th respondent ordered a formal inquiry and issued a show-cause notice on 01.08.2014, questioning why the petitioner should not be removed from service due to unauthorized absence. On 10.11.2014, the petitioner was removed from service for the alleged unauthorized absenteeism. Being aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a review petition before the 2^nd respondent- Regional Manager, TSRTC and the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 26.03.2015 allowed the review petition and imposed the punishment of deferment of increments for two years with cumulative effect and also the intervening period from the date of removal till reporting for duty shall be treated as not on duty. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation had contended that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved vide enquiry report dated 23.07.2014 and the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of removal for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the revisional authority had taken a lenient view by reinstating the petitioner into service by setting aside the removal order and no further lenient view can be taken and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. This Court having considered the submissions made by both the parties is of the considered view that the revisional authority ought to have imposed of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed by the revisional authority is modified to that of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect.

5. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed by the revisional authority to that of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect. It is made clear that the above modified punishment is without any monetary benefits. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date: 28.04.2025 dgr