THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.31731 of 2024

ORDER:

Seeking to quash the impugned order of suspension from service and charge sheet vide common case No.01/227(2)/2024- ZHB, dated 11.09.2024, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits, the present writ petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the year 2010, the petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent Corporation after undergoing due process of selection. Thereafter, his services were regularized w.e.f.14.05.2014 and since then he has been discharging his duties. While so, on 11.09.2024 he was placed under suspension and also issued with a charge memo leveling four charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner was insisted to perform the duties of Conductor with the help of TIM while driving the passengers’ vehicles, for more than one month, he made a representation dated 30.08.2024 to respondent No.2 stating that he cannot discharge the duties of Conductor as he was appointed as Driver and requesting to post him only as driver to passenger carriage vehicle. Thereafter, though the petitioner has reported for duty, he was treated as absent as he could not go to TIM’s service. When the petitioner objected for the same, he was placed under suspension and issued with the impugned charge memo dated 11.09.2024, which is illegal and arbitrary.

3.1) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings for not performing the duties of the Conductor is contrary to the appointment order of the petitioner and is nothing but colourable exercise of the power on the part of the respondents. Further, the petitioner has requested the authorities to furnish the copies of the depositions recorded in the Preliminary Enquiry and documents. As the same were not provided by respondent No.2, the taking of photos of the same, for the purpose of his defense statement, cannot be faulted with and cannot be treated as misconduct. Learned counsel has further contended that asking the petitioner (driver) to do the duty of the conductor while driving the bus is nothing but extracting the work of two jobs, which is unknown to law. It is further contended that as per the Manual on Operation of the respondent Corporation, the driver has to drive the bus as per the instruction of the conductor, but not otherwise. Hence, it is prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the suspension order granting all consequential benefits. Reliance has been placed on M.Mayandi v. Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Department¹ and C.G.Swamy v. APSRTC, Hyderabad2

4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that on 26.08.2024 the petitioner has reported for duty, signed on duty chart/control charge but refused to perform the duty on 1150/1210 Deluxe Bidar-Hyderabad even after undergoing training on operation of TIMs from 16.07.2024 to 23.08.2024. As such, the Assistant Manager (Traffic), Zaheerabad, had conducted a Preliminary Enquiry and submitted his report on 03.09.2024 wherein the petitioner has participated but refused to sign on the statements. Based on the said report, four charges were framed against the petitioner vide Charge Memo dated 11.09.2024. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted in the writ affidavit that he refused to go on TIM Service. As the petitioner was trained on operation of TIMS, he cannot refuse to perform duty. Learned Standing Counsel while drawing the attention of this Court to the

(1981) 2 SCC 89 2012 (3) ALD 494

amendment made to Rule 72 of Telangana State Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, has