R. Rajaiah, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WP No.21861 of 2015 Between:

P. Rajaiah

...Petitioner

And:

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, Hyderabad & others ... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may Yes/No be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the Copies of Judgment may Yes/No be marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.21861 of 2015 ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned standing counsel for the respondents-Corporation.

2. The petitioner is working as a Conductor in the 3rd respondent-Depot. While he was conducting bus on 17.06.2015 on route Borlagudem, checking officials stopped the bus at Kataram stage and exercised checking. One lady passenger, who was travelling in

the bus, was found without ticket. According to the petitioner, the lady passenger admitted that she did not pay the ticket fare to the petitioner, who was the Conductor of the bus and she also did not receive any ticket. It is said that she further stated that she was under the impression that one of her batch mates in the bus took the ticket for her and the same was informed to the checking officials. The checking officials recorded the statement of the passengers and issued charge memo to the petitioner and also collected Rs.18/- from the lady passenger for the value of the ticket.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the statement given by the lady passenger, the authorities ought not to have issued any charge memo to the petitioner and that keeping him under suspension is illegal and therefore, the suspension is required to be revoked.

4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that as per the charge memo issued to the petitioner, the misconduct relates to the cash ticket irregularities and the suspension is not supposed to revoke.

5. Having gone through the submissions on other side, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to receive the explanation from the petitioner and conduct enquiry against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks, from the date of receipt of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the order of suspension shall stand revoked. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

__________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 21.07.2015 BSS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.21861 of 2015

Date: 21.07.2015 BSS