IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2026 WRIT PETITION No.30969 of 2010 Between:

M. Bitcha .. Petitioner AND The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal and another .. Respondents

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed to quash the Award passed by the 1^st respondent in I.D. No.40 of 2001, dated

16.03.2009, and grant all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Panakanti Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondent No.2, and perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent Corporation as a Conductor on 01.08.1993, and he had a good record of service till he was removed from the service by order, dated 12.05.2000, by the 2^nd respondent. He was conducting the Bus on 11.01.2000. On that date, a shandy (weekly market) was held at Venkatpuram, and a number of private jeeps and Devasthanam buses were transporting passengers along the route. To increase revenue for the 2^nd respondent Corporation, the petitioner made every effort to complete ticket issuance on the running bus. At Stage No. 21, 50 passengers boarded the bus and by the time the bus reached Stop No.21/22, the petitioner had issued 40 tickets in the running bus and was counting the number of passengers to tally with the number of tickets issued.

(b) Meanwhile, a check was exercised, and the checking officials did not allow the petitioner to complete the ticket issue and forcibly made him close the SR. As per the directions of the checking officials, the petitioner had closed the SR before the completion of the ticket issuance. He was issued with a charge memo and chargesheet alleging that he had failed to observe rule of issuance and further alleged that having collected an amount of Rs.40/- at the boarding point itself, he failed to issue tickets to batch of 10 passengers who boarded the bus at Stage No. 21. It was also further alleged that the petitioner had closed all the denominations in the SR up to Stage No. 22.

(c) The petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation explaining the circumstances and denied the allegations, but the 2^nd respondent, without considering his explanation, ordered for an inquiry. A stage-managed inquiry was conducted in which he was denied a reasonable opportunity to participate in the inquiry. Before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner stated clearly that the checking officials forced him to close the SR against Stage No.22. Actually, Venkatapur village lies between stages 21 and 22, and his statement before the Inquiry Officer remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

(d) On behalf of the 2^nd respondent Corporation, one of the checking officials was examined, and he stated that 50 passengers boarded the bus on Stage No.21, and by the time of check, the petitioner had issued 40 tickets and 10 passengers were not issued with the tickets. The Inquiry Officer brushed aside the legal evidence on record and submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse, and the Inquiry Officer failed to assign any reasons for preferring the statement of the checking official over the petitioner’s unchallenged testimony.

(e) Before the 1^st respondent, the petitioner had challenged the validity of the domestic inquiry and the 1st respondent upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry and passed an award setting aside the order of removal and directed the 2^nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without back wages and other attendant benefits and further directed the period of suspension is to be treated as “not on duty for all purposes.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent having found that there was irregularity committed by the checking officials wit