THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the proceedings vide letter No.O2/144(03)/2025-PKT dated 07.04.2025 issued by respondent No.3 and its consequential office order No.P6/813(03)/2025-RR, whereby, the petitioner was transferred from Picket Bus Depot to Tandur Bus Depot, and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in Picket Bus Depot.

2. Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 07.04.2025, while he was working as a Driver in respondent No.3-Depot, on the allegation of rash behaviour with Ms. K. Priyanka, a passenger who boarded the bus at Uppal X Road for Jubilee Bus Station. In response, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation, denying the charge. However, his services were surrendered to the Personnel Officer, Ranga Reddy region, vide letter dated 07.04.2025, for transfer and further posting. Thereafter, the Personnel Officer of respondent No.2, vide impugned proceedings dated 10.04.2025, transferred the petitioner from Picket Bus Depot to Tandur Bus Depot. It is contended that the impugned transfer is effected as a means of punishment, which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned transfer order and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service at respondent No.3 Depot. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in V.V. Ramana Reddy v. Chief General Manager, A.P. Circle, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Govt. of India, Hyd. and another, 2001 (3) ALD 50 (DB)

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that a complaint was received against the petitioner that he misbehaved with a lady passenger in front of all the bus passengers, while performing his duties on 26.03.2025 in bus bearing No.TS 21 Z 0037. As such, a preliminary enquiry was conducted against him, wherein, he accepted the aforesaid allegation. Thus, since the action of the petitioner caused inconvenient to the lady passenger, besides tarnishing the image of the Corporation, he was issued a charge sheet dated 07.04.2025, and he was directed to report before the Personnel Officer of respondent No.2 for further

transfer and posting. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned order dated 10.04.2025, transferring the petitioner from Picket Bus Depot to Tandur Bus Depot. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s transfer cannot be said to be not punitive in nature as contended by the petitioner, as he has been transferred only in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, so as to avoid repetition of misconduct and to present him from hampering with the investigation in any possible manner. Therefore, the transfer order is clearly temporary in nature and it has rightly been issued only to conduct a fair and transparent enquiry into the charges leveled against him. In support of their case, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras v.

Perachi and others2

5. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material on record.

6. Admittedly, basing on a complaint dated 26.03.2025, received from one passenger, Ms. K. Priyanka that the petitioner had misbehaved with her by loudly shouting on her; a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, wherein, he himself accepted the commission of aforesaid act. Thereafter, he was issued with a Charge

2 (2011) 12 SCC 137

Sheet dated 07.04.2025, and subsequently, vide letter dated 07.04.2025, he was directed to report before the Personnel Officer, Ranga Reddy region, for further transfer and posting.