SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top