Md. Hasan v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Tsrtc) And 3 Others

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20263 OF 2019 Date: 19.09.2019 Between:

Md. Hasan S/o.Mohammad Yousuf, Age 54 yrs, Occu : Leading Hand, E.No.201414, JDM Department, TSRTC, R/o.H.No.4-38-52/5, Dheenabandu Colony, Jagathgirigutta, Hyderabad.

.....Petitioner And The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) Rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & others.

.....Respondents The Court made the following:

- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20263 OF 2019 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned standing counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC).

2.

By order, dated 26.10.1999, the punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed. Aggrieved thereby petitioner preferred appeal. The appellate authority by his order dated 20.02.2001 modified the said punishment to that of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. In the present writ petition, petitioner challenges the said order.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.18911 of 2009 dated 25.10.2018 to contend that petitioner is also entitled to similar relief of modification of punishment with cumulative effect to that of without cumulative effect.

4.

In W.P.No.18911 of 2009 petitioner challenges the order dated 10.12.2008 of appellate authority modifying the punishment of removal to that of withholding of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and that the petitioner therein approached this Court immediately after the punishment was imposed. In the instant case, petitioner is challenging the modified punishment of the appellate authority dated 20.02.2001 i.e., after 18 1⁄2 years. There is inordinate delay and unexplained delay in prosecuting the grievance, more so, the punishment is not

- 3 - as grave, warranting interference, even assuming that the delay can be ignored. The writ petition merits no consideration. 5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 19th September, 2019 Rds