THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24024 of 2009

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, who confirmed the order dated 02.09.2005 passed by the 1st respondent.

2. Heard Sri A. Thirupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned standing counsel for TGSRTC.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner was working as a Conductor and was attached to the depot of the 1st respondent. On 15-3-2005, while the petitioner was proceeding as a Conductor on bus bearing No.5660 on route Siddipet to Vemulawada, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Stage No.9/10 at 11.15 a.m, and issued a charge memo to the petitioner framing two charges. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said charge memo. Not satisfied with the expiation submitted by the petitioner, Respondent No.1 issued suspension order and on the same day, issued charge-sheet dated 22.03.2005 framing the following three (3) charges.

“CHARGE No.1:

“For having failed to observe the rule “Issue and start” on 15-3-2005 while you were conducting bus NO.5660 on the route Vemulawada at stage No.9/10 which constitutes to mis-conduct vide Regulation No.28 (xxxii)

of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.”

CHARGE No.2:

For having failed to issue tickets to two passengers who are found alighting without tickets at Indiranagar (Stage No.9/10) who boarded your bus at Siricilla near Katta even-after collecting requisite fare of Rs.3/- each total Rs.6/- at the boarding point itself hence obtained TPTs No.341/040417 to 418 of Rs.3/- each while you were conducting with bus No.5660 on 15-3-2005 on the route Siddipet – Vemulawada which constitutes to mis- conduct under Regulation No.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.”

CHARGE No.3:

For having failed to co-operate with the checking officials at the time of check and created nuisance in front of travelling passengers and took lot of time to write your statement and to counter- sign on the passenger statement on 15-3-2005 at stage No.9/10 on the route Siddipet-Vemulawada while performing duty with bus No.5660, which constitutes to mis-conduct under Regulations No.28(xvii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.”

(b) Respondent No.1 has conducted a domestic enquiry and raised the suspension and directed the petitioner to report before the Divisional Manager, Sangareddy, for further posting, vide order, dated 02.09.2005. At the same time, the 1^st respondent passed order dated 02.09.2005 deferring the petitioner’s annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not on duty.

(c) Aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Medak Division and the same was rejected on 10.05.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before respondent No.2 and the same was also rejected on 20.06.2007. Challenging the order, dated

20.06.2007, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the checking officials stopped the bus at Stage No.9/10 at 11.15 a.m, and prevented the petitioner from enquiring, collecting the fare, and issuing tickets. Although the concerned passengers clearly informed the checking officials regarding their boarding point and his intention to collect the fare, the officials threatened both the passengers and the petitioner, and subsequently framed a charge memo against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the allegation that the passengers boarded near the lake and paid Rs.3/- each is false, fabricated, and contrary to the statements of the passengers. The checking officials failed to record any co-passengers’ statements. As the charges framed against the petitioner were false and baseless, he protested while receiving the c