RTC's Punishment Order Set Aside, Petitioner 'Entitled' for Full Benefits
Hyderabad: Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside an order of punishment passed by the the undivided APSRTC against a driver on charges that he had negligently caused an accident in 2008 leading to the death of a cleaner. The judge allowed the writ petition filed by Ashok Reddy, the driver, challenging the nomination of a subordinate officer, an assistant engineer, as enquiry officer and the consequential conclusion of the enquiry leading to his punishment of deferment of increments for two years with cumulative effect. Justice Nanda pointed out that a bare perusal of the material on record would establish that the findings were based on a report of the joint accident committee (JAC) which pointed out that the petitioner was partially responsible for the accident.
The judge pointed out that the proceedings were ‘passed mechanically in a routine manner’ by ‘simply reiterating that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a negligent manner and without observing the traffic on the road and keeping in mind the gravity of the accident.’ The judge faulted the RTC for ignoring log-sheets and observed that ‘the petitioner had been unnecessarily victimised though he was not guilty of the charge’. The judge said ‘the fundamental principle of natural justice applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings is that the authority empowered to decide must be one without any bias in a dispute. In quasi-judicial proceedings if the disciplinary authority himself enquired into the matter at preliminary stage and gave a finding that the delinquent employee was wrong definitely, it is not desirable that such disciplinary authority should initiate the proceedings and take a decision in the matter’. The deputy manager, the disciplinary authority, was also a member of the JAC, the judge pointed out. Allowing the writ petition, the judge said the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits.
SCB asked to refrain from demolishing showroom
Justice M. Sudheer Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the Secunderabad Cantonment Board (SCB) to maintain status quo and not demolish a showroom owned by Mody Autonation Private Limited. The company had filed a writ plea challenging the rejection order of the board regarding regularisation of an under-construction showroom. The judge observed that there was another connecting dispute that was pending and directed the board to maintain the status quo till Monday.
ED seizes properties; HC reserves orders
Justice M. Sudheer Kumar of Telangana High Court reserved for orders a writ plea pertaining to the action of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in seizing documents and properties during a search operation. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by Sumesh Gupta, owner of MBS Jewellers. Senior counsel Chandrasen Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, contended that earlier this court had quashed ECIR proceedings and in view of the same sought releasing the properties of the petitioner. ED standing counsel contended that there was an appeal pending before the apex court pertaining to the issue. The petitioner’s counsel said that as the apex court did not stay proceedings, the properties cannot remain in the custody of the ED.
Loan defaulter given two weeks, bank asked to withhold sale
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court directed AP Mahesh Co-operative Bank not to confirm a sale for two weeks and granted the petitioner liberty to deposit the amount within two weeks as per the directions of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad. The bench, comprising Justice P. Naveen Rao and Justice Nagesh Bheempaka, was dealing with a writ plea filed by Ashok, a resident of Musheerabad, who contended that the bank was unlawfully proceeding to conduct an auction of the secured asset and dispossess him. He said that the loan was for his daughter’s education and the bank could not proceed unlawfully even if he had defaulted repayment. Mayur Mundra, counsel for the bank, said that there was a difference between the type and purpose of loan. He argued that the purpose was education, but what was sanctioned was a mortgaged loan. If the loan was for education then the student would have been a borrower. Mundra said that even accepting the default in repayment and the petitioner creating a saga of litigations before the DRT, which went disregarded, he cannot be granted relief. The bench refused to grant any relief but accepted the request of the petitioner for time to remit the amount and directed the bank not to confirm the sale until two weeks. The bench added that if the petitioner failed to comply, the bank was at liberty to progress in accordance with the law.
