* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO + W.P.No.26145 OF 2024 % 07 —10—2025 # A.Venkati …Petitioner $ Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and others … Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Satya Sadhan Chalamala, learned counsel representing Smt.B.Geetha ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri P.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

>Head Note :

? Cases referred

1. (2010 (15) SCC 399)

2. (1996 (1) ALD 764)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

W.P.No.26145 OF 2024 Between: A.Venkati …Petitioner Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 07.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? :

yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :

yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? :

yes _______________________________________________

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26145 of 2024

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-

“ ….. to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order, dated 25.04.2024 passed by the 5^th respondent, which was upheld by the 4^th respondent vide proceedings dated 14.05.2024, which was further upheld vide order dated 30.07.2024 as being illegal, arbitrary and further violative of law declared in W.P.No.30453 of 2013, dated 25.04.2023 and W.P.No.5077 of 2021, dated 04.07.2024 and consequently set aside the same …….”.

2. Heard Sri Satya Sadhan Chalamala, learned counsel representing Smt.B.Geetha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

The petitioner was appointed as a driver on

01.01.2007 and has completed more than 17 years of service. Meanwhile, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 16.03.2024 on the allegation that the petitioner consumed alcohol and participated in a dharna. The petitioner has submitted an explanation on 23.04.2024. The respondent authority has conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 10.04.2024. Despite his objections dated 23-04-2024, a show-cause notice dated 23-04-2024 was issued to the petitioner, and he was removed from service vide proceedings of the 5^th respondent, dated 25.04.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent, after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the 5th respondent vide proceedings dated 14.05.2024. Further aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a review before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 30.07.2024, dismissed the review confirming the order passed by the 3^rd respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not consumed liquor while performing duty and therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner is wholly untenable and unsustainable. Insofar as the charge that a dharna was conducted, resulting in a loss of revenues, is concerned, the petitioner has already submitted that he has attended the dharna at 11.30 a.m., and that the dharna commenced from 5.30 a.m., for which no coercive action was taken by the police.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the dharna was held in support of one Sri Ch.N.Rao, who is a driver of Madhira Depot, and no punitive action was taken against fourteen (14) employees, who participated in the dharna. The 5^th respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, erroneously passed the proceedings dated 25.04.2024, removing the petitioner from service. The 2nd respondent, as well as the 3^rd respondent, dis