##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION No.8568 of 2017 Dated 26^th March, 2026.

Between:

V. Venkataiah … Petitioner AND

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and three others.

… Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the order of removal from service dated 24.07.2014 and also the 2^nd respondent proceeding dated 29.11.2014 in so far as deferring annual increment for a period of (2) years with cumulative effect besides treating the period as not on duty as arbitrary, unjust in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently I pray this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the deferred increment duly treating the removal period as on duty along with all

consequential benefits…”

2 PK, J

W.P.No.8568 of 2017

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, 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 joined the services of respondent Corporation as a Driver on 24.05.2010, and his services were subsequently regularized w.e.f., 01.09.2013. While so, , the petitioner was erroneously placed under suspension and issued with a Charge Sheet dated 08.08.2014, alleging that on 30.04.2014 at about 09-00 hours, he had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed causing the fatal accident of one pedestrian, who had suddenly come onto the road from the left side. However, the petitioner had immediately taken the vehicle to the right side to evade the collision, but the pedestrian himself invited the accident by coming in contact with the front left-side bumper of the vehicle, resulting in his demise. In response to the Charge Sheet, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.05.2014, denying the charge, while explaining the above facts. However, without considering the same, an enquiry was ordered, wherein, the Assistant Manager (Traffic) deposed that the pedestrian was crossing the road suddenly duly talking on the cellphone, and it was his negligence that resulted in the collision. It is further submitted that the Service Conductor deposed that he had come

3 PK, J

W.P.No.8568 of 2017

to know about the accident when the petitioner stopped the bus suddenly. Further, the petitioner, in his defense, categorically deposed that the pedestrian was talking on the cellphone and suddenly jumped from the road divider and a lorry, passing by, had hit him, resulting in the accident. However, without considering the same, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge solely basing on the preliminary enquiry report and the Accident Committee Report, which was never furnished to the petitioner. As such, the action of the enquiry officer is wholly illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. However, without considering the facts of the case, the petitioner was erroneously removed from service vide proceedings dated 24.07.2014 issued by respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and on considering the same, the petitioner was granted reinstatement vide proceedings dated 29.11.2014. However, the punishment earlier imposed was modified to that of postponement of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. It is further submitted that a criminal case vide C.C.No.684 of 2014 was registered against the petitioner, which ended in his acquittal vide judgment dated 21.04.2015. As such, it is clear that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner herein for the said

4 PK, J

W.P.No.8568 of 2017

accident. Therefore, it