IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.20210 OF 2021 DATED: 19.02.2026 Between Smt. B. Jeevitha ... Petitioner AND Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 4 others.

... Respondents

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.4 in terminating the services of the petitioner’s husband vide proceedings No.E1/1(13)/2018-SDNR dated 28.01.2019 and the consequential order passed by respondent No.5 in I.D.No.12 of 2020 dated 06.04.2021, which was issued in G.O.Rt.No.301 dated 24.06.2021, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to treat her deceased husband as having died in service with continuity of service and to grant all retirement benefits including compassionate appointment to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, are that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Conductor in the year 2013 and his services were regularized in the year 2015. It is stated that on the allegation that the petitioner’s husband/employee absented from duty from 25.05.2018 to 19.06.2018, a charge memo was issued and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the punishment of termination from service was imposed by respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.E1/1(13)/2018- SDNR dated 28.01.2019. It is further stated that the employee preferred an appeal against the said proceedings, but during its pendency, he passed away and the matter was thereafter pursued by his legal heir, i.e., the petitioner herein, who is his wife. It is stated that the appeal was rejected and thereafter I.D.No.12 of 2020 was filed before the Labour Court and the same was also dismissed vide award dated 06.04.2021. Therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge memo was issued only for absenteeism for a period of 25 days and that the respondents-corporation itself has considered similarly placed employees for fresh appointments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of the office order dated 05.12.2025, whereunder the cases of ex-employees of TGSRTC who had exhausted three levels of appeal were considered for fresh appointment, including the cases of absenteeism, cash and ticket irregularities, accidents and intoxication. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being the wife of the deceased employee, is seeking consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in support of his contentions that the period of unauthorized absence mentioned in the charge memo alone can be taken into consideration for disciplinary action and the past incidents cannot be relied upon to justify removal from service.

4. Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for respondents- corporation, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the employee was unauthorizedly absent and therefore, disciplinary action was initiated. It is submitted that due procedure was followed in issuing the charge memo, conducting the enquiry and in passing of the termination orders. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the enquiry proceedings. It is also submitted that no proof of filing of the appeal was furnished and that the Labour Court rightly observed that mere acknowledgment of a representation would not amount to filing of an appeal. Learned counsel also referred to the findings of the Labour Court holding that the unauthorized absence of the petitioner’s husband warranted termination from service. It is further submitted that the employee/petitioner’s