Telangana High Court
M.M. Reddy vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 25 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.25766, 25767, 25851, 25897 and 25901 of 2025 COMMON ORDER:
Aggrieved by the impugned orders in Proc.No.P1/498(1)/2025-RR dated 30.06.2025, whereby, the petitioners have been placed under suspension, the present writ petitions are filed.
2. Since the lis in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are analogously heard together and are taken up disposal by way of this common order.
3. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners joined the services of the respondent Corporation as Driver and Conductors during 1991, and subsequently, got their services regularized. Thereafter, all the petitioners, except the petitioner in W.P.No.25897 of 2025, were promoted as Assistant Depot Clerks. While so, relying on some three documents, respondent No.2 has passed the present impugned orders dated 30.06.2025, placing the petitioners 2 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch under suspension. However, when the petitioners requested to furnish the aforesaid three documents, instead of considering the same, respondent No.2 has issued individual charge sheets against the petitioners on 08.07.2025, alleging that they have misappropriated receivable cash proceeds by inflating HP and DPT Transactions, during their duties as Shift in-charge at HPCL Fuel Outlet at MYP-I Depot, and that they failed to submit relevant documents/proofs for the aforesaid HP and DPT Transactions. However, since the documents, referred to in the reference, were not furnished to the petitioners, they submitted their representations to respondent No.2 on 15.07.2025, requesting to furnish the relevant documents, which were served upon them through letter addressed by respondent No.2 dated 26.07.2025. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted their explanations on 04.08.2025, stating that the documents relating to receipt of daily cash, UPI/POS payments, HP Drive Track Plus and HP-Pay sale transaction, etc., and also the details of daily closing and opening readings of all nozzles are not furnished to ascertain the correctness or otherwise, have not been furnished. It is also stated that the duties entrusted upon the petitioners, who are working as ADCs and Conductor, are also not a part of the duties as per the Rules prescribed in the RTC Operational Manual, and if there was any discrepancy in the cash details, only the outsourcing employees 3 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch would be responsible, as they were the individuals handling the Nozzle by collecting cash, online payments, etc. As such, denied the charges and requested to drop further action and also to revoke their suspension. However, without even considering the explanations of the petitioners and without even furnishing the aforesaid documents, the respondents are proceeding ahead with the disciplinary proceedings, due to which, the petitioners are facing much hardship in defending themselves.
5. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority of the post the petitioners are holding is the Junior Scale Officer, i.e., Depot Manager, and thus, if so warranted, respondent No.3 ought to have initiated any proceedings. However, the present proceedings are initiated by respondent No.2-Regional Manager, who is the reviewing authority under Regulation 29 of the TGSRTC (CC&A) Regulations, 1967. As such, the petitioners are being deprived of an opportunity of two-level appeal, i.e., appeal under Regulation 22 and a review under Regulation 29. Moreover, the petitioners are also being deprived of a third level appeal under Regulation 30, which amounts to denial of respective appeal rights. Therefore, the present impugned orders are unsustainable under law. It is further submitted that from the documents furnished to the petitioners, it is found that one 4 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch Mr. Yedukondalu, Senior Assistant (F), E.No.270058 and one G. Shankar, Assistant Engineer (M), E.No.611613, MYP-I Depot, were also held responsible, but neither of them were placed under suspension nor any proceedings were initiated against them, in spite of bringing the same to the notice of respondent No.2. As such, the action of respondent No.2 is based on a colourable exercise of power and the same also amounts to adopting selective system of suspension, which is in gross violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on filing of counter affidavits, submits that the Accounts Officer reported prima facie findings of serious irregularities by the petitioners, causing a loss to a tune of Rs.30,32,256.21 to the Corporation. As such, in view of the serious irregularities involving huge amounts, the petitioners were placed under suspension in accordance with Regulation 18 of the TGSRTC (CC&A) Regulations. It is also submitted that suspension is only an administrative measure, pending enquiry, which does not prejudice the petitioners' defense in any manner. It is further submitted that on considering the representations of the petitioner dated 15.07.2025, copies of the relevant documents, consisting of the A.O.'s report dated 17.06.2025, 5 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch DM/Picket interim report dated 28.06.2025, preliminary enquiry report dated 03.07.2025, and the statements recorded, were furnished to the petitioners under the covering letter dated 26.07.2025, which were served upon them on 30.07.2025. Subsequently, after receipt of the said documents only, the petitioners submitted their explanations on 04.08.2025. As such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice.
7. It is further submitted that the petrol bunks were being maintained by the outsourcing employees for (24) hours, who alone are responsible for the irregularities, is false and baseless, as the petitioners, being shift in-charges, were duty-bound to verify the nozzle readings, reconcile the HP Pay/Drive Track Plus transactions and ensure the correct remittances, in view of the Circular No.3/2025- CTM(C) dated 17.02.2025. However, the petitioners failed to perform their duties diligently, resulting in huge loss to the Corporation. It is further submitted that the preliminary enquiry reports date 03.07.2025 clearly reveal the discrepancies during the petitioners' shifts and on the basis of the said report, the specific charges were leveled against them, which are supported by documentary evidence. As such, the petitioners cannot assert that no documents were furnished to them. It is also submitted that the Regional Manager, being the higher authority, is fully 6 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch competent to initiate proceedings in respect of serious financial irregularities, more particularly, when multiple individuals are involved in the said irregularity. As such, respondent No.2 is justified in passing the impugned suspension orders and the charge sheets. Further, the contention of the petitioners that they are deprived of appeal remedies is also incorrect, as they may still pursue their remedies by way of statutory appeal, review or revision under the Regulations.
8. It is further submitted that the respondents also initiated action against other individuals involved in the said irregularities. In respect of the same incident, a charge sheet dated 26.07.2025 was issued against one Mr. G. Ravi Shankar. However, Mr. Yedukondalu, Senior Assistant (F), had only worked on a relieving duty during the period from 12.05.2025 to 24.05.2025. As such, there is no colourable exercise of power by respondent No.2, nor is there any selective system of treatment. Hence, the present writ petitions lack any merit, and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
9. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that one Mr. B. Mohan Rao, Depot Manager of respondent No.3 Depot, was issued with a charge sheet dated 26.07.2025, alleging that he was responsible for huge loss of revenue to the Corporation. Likewise, one Mr. S. Ramaiah, Deputy Manager RM (M), Hyderabad Region, and Mr. 7 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch G. Ravi Shanker, Assistant Engineer (M) of respondent No.3 Depot, were issued with the charge sheet dated 26.07.2025, alleging misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix)(a) & XXXII of the TGSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. However, they were never placed under suspension. Further, no action has been initiated at all against one Mr. Yedukondalu, against whom, prima facie was also established. Hence, it is once again prayed to allow the present writ petition. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P. and another 1
10. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
11. A perusal of record discloses that in view of the allegations of serious financial irregularities causing substantial loss to the respondent Corporation, based on a preliminary enquiry dated 03.07.2025, respondent No.2 has issued the present impugned orders dated 30.06.2025, placing the petitioners under suspension, followed by charge sheets, dated 08.07.2025. It is apposite to refer to the preliminary enquiry report dated 03.07.2025, and the conclusion portion of the said report is extracted hereunder:
1 (1999) 6 SCC 257 8 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch "Conclusion:
On verification of relevant documents and consideration of statements of all employees who performed their duties at Miyapur1 depot Fuel outlet, it is to conclude that
1. It is evident through the statements of ADCs and Conductor that they are recording the HP pay transactions as given by the outsourced operators without cross checking in mobile and has failed to generate summary report from POS machine of HPCL and receive cash from outsourced operators as per statement.
2. It is prima facie evident that the HP Pay transactions were inflated and the receivable Cash proceeds were misappropriated.
3. The Earning DC of Miyapur1 depot Smt.J.Anitha E.210633 has failed to collect, check and file all the relevant documents at the time of collection of cash of fuel outlet of the day.
4. Sri B. Sitrarama Sastry E.203934, SA(F) of MYP1 depot has failed to cross check and reconcile all HP pay transaction in OMC's portal and went on making payments for the fuel without reconciling.
5. Sri E.Yedukondalu E.270058 SA(F) of BHEL has performed duty at Miyapur1 depot on reliving from 12.05.25 to 24.05.25, he has performed duty at Miyapur1 fuel outlet exclusively at Fuel outlet during this period, but failed cross check the relevant transactions.
6. The wrong entries by ADCs in fuel outlet transactions has came to the notice of Sri.G.Ravi Shanker E.411613, AE(M)/MYP1 on 10.03.25, but failed to escalate the issue to Higher Authorities.
Thus, it is evident that the ADCs Sri M.M.Reddy, E.270823, Sri P. Srinivas, E.271294, Sri G.D.Reddy, E.270774, Sri K.Upender, E.203972, Sri G.S.Chary E.202156, Sri R.Kishore Babu, E.210977- Condcutor, J.Pandaraiah E.250986 retired DC, Sri B.Sitarama Sastry, E.203934, SA(F) and Smt J.Anitha, E.210633 are primarily held responsible for the severe financial loss to the Corporation."
12. From the above, it is clear that apart from the petitioners, certain other individuals, viz., Mr. B. Mohan Rao, Depot Manager, Mr. S. Ramaiah, Deputy Manager RM (M), Mr. G. Ravi Shankar, Assistant 9 PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch Engineer (M) and Mr. E. Yedukondalu, Senior Assistant (F), were also allegedly found to be involved in the same incident. However, it is the specific case of the petitioners that none of these individuals were placed under suspension, despite a prima facie case was also made out against them as well. According to the respondents, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the aforesaid individuals by way of issuance of charge sheets, but no action has been taken against one Mr. Yedukondalu, since he was only on relieving duty during the relevant period.
13. From the above, it is evident that none of the co-delinquents were ever placed under suspension, even though disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them by way of charge memos dated 26.07.2025 and 08.07.2025.
14. It is well-settled principle of law, as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that discriminatory treatment among similarly situated individuals is impermissible. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has consistently held that the selective suspension of one or more individuals involved in the same set of allegations/incidents, while retaining others in service, cannot be permitted, as it amounts to discrimination and arbitrary treatment. In Sukhendar Reddy (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed: 10
PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch "7. Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of senior IAS officers, even senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothing positive or definite can be said as yet as the investigation is likely to take time. The matter is pending with the police since 1-12-1996 when the FIR was lodged at Anakapalli Town Police Station.
The investigation has not been completed although about two- and-a-half years have passed. We do not know how long it will take to complete the investigation. That being so, the officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where may more senior officers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. It cannot be permitted to place an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their higher status in the service hierarchy, would be taken."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. From the above, it is clear that the authorities cannot resort to suspension in a selective manner. In the instant case, although the respondents contend that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the other individuals, but none of them have been placed under suspension like the petitioners herein. Hence, it is clear that the impugned suspension amounts to a selective treatment, and therefore, the impugned suspension orders are unsustainable in the eye of law.
16. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the present impugned suspension orders are liable to be set aside on the ground of discriminatory treatment.
11
PK, J W.P.No.25766 of 2025 & Batch
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed-in-part, setting aside the impugned suspension orders of the petitioners issued by respondent No.2 vide proceedings in Proc.No.P1/498(1)/2025-RR, all dated 30.06.2025, and the respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioners into service. However, this order shall not preclude the authorities from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners in pursuance of the Charge Memos dated 08.07.2025, strictly in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 25.09.2025.
GSP