THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO.25299 OF 2024

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…declaring that the action of the 3^rd respondent herein in issuing Show Cause Notice of Removal from service of the petitioner is bad arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice by setting aside the Show Cause Notice No.01/114 (3)/2024-KRTL dt.27-08-2024 of the 3rd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all benefits by treating the suspension period as on duty for all purposes …”

2) Heard Sri P.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

3) Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Conductor, Charge Sheet dated 03.02.2024 along with suspension order was issued against him alleging that on 01.02.2024 near Security Branch, he had ridiculously commented the Depot Manager, Metpally, as ‘Ee Sundari Ikkade Undha’. On 07.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 23.05.2024 and 05.06.2024, petitioner has submitted representations to furnish the SHC report dated 02.02.2024 as well as Preliminary Enquiry Report dated

03.02.2024 and also relevant video. Though the Preliminary Enquiry report dated 03.02.2024 and SHC report dated 02.02.2024 are served on the petitioner, the video is not yet served by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner could not submit his explanation to the charge sheet. However, the petitioner was asked to participate in the domestic enquiry and accordingly he attended for enquiry on 12.07.2024. Further, after receiving the domestic enquiry report, petitioner has submitted his objections on 12.08.2024. Without considering the said objections, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned Show Cause Notice of Removal dated 27.08.2024 proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner requested the authorities to furnish copy of video to enable him to submit proper explanation, the same was not furnished. Therefore, the subsequent procedure adopted by the respondents is against the principles of natural justice and non-est in the eye of law. Further, in the letter dated 01.02.2024 of the out-sourcing Security Guard and also in the report dated

02.02.2024 of SHC, there is no mention of statement of A.Vineeth, car driver of the Depot Manager. Therefore, it can be construed that the said witness is a fabricated witness. Further, the statements of the Security Staff and car driver are contradicting with each other. Learned counsel further submits that the Security staff admitted that the car driver was not available at the spot at the time of incident. Further, in spite of request of the petitioner, the bus driver viz., K.Ganga Ram was not examined in the enquiry and the said witness is a crucial witness. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner made a complaint on 02.03.2023 to the Managing Director and Regional Manager, Karimnagar, about the uncleanliness in the Bus Stand of Vemulawada, for which, the Unit Officers were warned. For the said reason, the present show cause notice was issued. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that issuance of impugned show cause notice indicating proposed punishment is illegal, bad, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and therefore prays to allow the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 SCC 33

5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that as the petitioner has ridiculously commented on the Depot Manager, Metpally, on 01.02.2024, basing on the preliminary enquiry report dated 02.02.2024, the charge sheet dated 06.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner and he was also supplied with the documents i.e. report of Security Head Constable, Metpally, as well a