In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has set aside a previous judicial order and reinstated the suspension of several employees of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC) who are accused of being involved in a major financial misappropriation case.
Bench Overturns Single Judge's Ruling
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin delivered the verdict on Friday, strongly siding with the appellant, TGSRTC. The bench was unequivocal in its criticism of the earlier ruling by a single judge, stating that the judge had "transgressed the limits of judicial review".
The court emphasized that the single judge "erred by interfering with the administrative discretion of the appellant corporation". This error was based on what the bench termed a "misplaced comparison" of the accused employees with other superior officers who faced different charges.
The Miyapur Depot Scandal
The case originates from serious financial irregularities detected at the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) fuel outlet located at TGSRTC's Miyapur-I Depot. Following an accounts officer's report, a preliminary enquiry by the depot manager uncovered a substantial financial loss of approximately Rs 30.32 lakh.
The respondents in the case, primarily including four assistant depot clerks (ADCs) and one conductor, were functioning as shift in-charges at the fuel outlet. They were suspended based on an interim inquiry and chargesheeted for serious misconduct that included:
- Misappropriation of receivable cash
- Failure to submit required documents
- Direct involvement in the financial irregularities
Critical Legal Distinction Established
The high court bench noted a fundamental flaw in the single judge's reasoning. "The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that all individuals named in the preliminary enquiry report were similarly situated. In our considered view, this is a fundamental fallacy," the judgment stated.
The bench elaborated on the critical legal distinction between the charges faced by different officials. "And to equate the charge of active misappropriation with one of supervisory negligence for the purpose of suspension is to ignore this critical legal distinction," the court observed.
Highlighting the proximity of the accused employees to the misconduct, the bench noted that the single judge had "failed to appreciate that the respondents are directly related to and in immediate proximity to the misconduct."
Restoration of Suspension and Future Proceedings
The division bench concluded that the challenged common order "suffers from a manifest error of law and cannot be sustained." Consequently, the court took the following actions:
- Restored the suspension orders against the respondent employees
- Directed that pending departmental proceedings against the officers shall be concluded "as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law"
- Clarified that the ruling will not prejudice the rights of the respondents during the ongoing proceedings
The court stressed that suspension in a case of misappropriation was not merely an administrative measure but a necessary step to protect the integrity of the inquiry and to prevent the accused from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The original suspension orders dated June 30, 2025 had been set aside by the single judge on September 25 this year, who had held that the suspension amounted to "selective treatment" since certain other officials facing disciplinary proceedings with similar allegations were not suspended.
