2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 8564
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
SYED JAHANGIR HYDERABAD. – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER – Respondent
WP 4111/2007
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.4111 of 2007 DATED: 26th MARCH, 2026
Between Syed Jahangir (died) rep by LRs i.e. Smt. Rafath Jahan
and 4 others …Petitioners AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Falaknuma Depot, Hyderabad and another …Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 26.03.2026
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?
3. Whether her Ladyship/ Lordship wish to : Yes/No see the fair copy of the judgment ?
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
##PAGE2##2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.4111 of 2007
DATED: 26th MARCH, 2026 Between
Syed Jahangir (died) rep by LRs i.e. Smt. Rafath Jahan and 4 others …Petitioners
AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Falaknuma Depot, Hyderabad and another …Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mohd. Yousufuddin, learned
Counsel For Respondents : Ms. NSV Janaki, learned counsel rep.
Mr.R.Anurag, Standing Counsel for
Telangana State Road Transport
Corporation.
Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
##PAGE3##3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.4111 of 2007 DATED: 26th MARCH, 2026
Between Syed Jahangir (died) rep by LRs i.e. Smt. Rafath Jahan
and 4 others …Petitioners AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Falaknuma Depot, Hyderabad and another …Respondents
O R D E R
The petitioner No.1 filed the present Writ Petition challenging
the Award dated 04.10.2004 passed by the Labour Court, whereby the Labour Court upheld the removal order dated 01.10.1990. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner No.1 died and his legal heirs, i.e. the petitioner Nos.2 to 6, were brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner No.1 is
hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”.
02. Heard Mr. Mohd. Yousufuddin, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Ms. NSV Janaki, learned counsel appearing for Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road
Transport Corporation and perused the record.
##PAGE4##4
03. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Driver on
10.02.1976 and was terminated from service on certain misconduct. Subsequently, he was reinstated into service as a fresh Driver with effect from 31.03.1982 as per the orders of the Divisional Manager. While so, the petitioner was granted leave for 45 days from 03.06.1990 to 17.07.1990. However, he did not report for duty on 18.07.1990 and remained unauthorizedly absent from that date onwards. In view of the same, a charge sheet dated 27.08.1990 was issued to the petitioner, but the same was returned unserved. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner was informed to attend the enquiry scheduled on 07.09.1990 at 10.00 a.m., but the said notice was also returned unserved. The Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report holding the charges as proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 13.09.1990 proposing the punishment of removal from service was issued to the petitioner. As there was no response from the petitioner, he was removed from service by order dated 01.10.1990. Subsequently, on 22.09.1993, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents-RTC requesting a copy of the removal order, which was furnished to him on 24.09.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Industrial Dispute on 22.04.1996,
##PAGE5##5
i.e. after about two and a half years from the date of receipt of the removal order. Despite taking as many as ten adjournments, the petitioner did not appear before the Labour Court to prosecute the matter and the same was ultimately dismissed on 16.12.1997 for non-representation. Thereafter, after a lapse of about six years, the petitioner filed I.A.No.118 of 2004 on 07.04.2004 seeking to condone the