‘Transgressed limits of judicial review’: Telangana HC restores suspension of TGSRTC staff accused of misappropriation

The case originates from serious financial misconduct at the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) fuel outlet at TGSRTC’s Miyapur-I Depot. The respondents, mainly including assistant depot clerks (ADCs) and one conductor, were functioning as shift in-charges. Following an accounts officer’s report, a preliminary enquiry by the depot manager uncovered substantial financial loss of approximately Rs 30.32 lakh, allegedly due to irregularities.

Five employees – four ADCs and one conductor – were suspended based on an interim inquiry and chargesheeted for serious misconduct, misappropriation of receivable cash and failure to submit the required documents. However, their supervisors were not suspended from service.

On September 25 this year, a single judge had set aside the respondent employees’ suspension orders dated June 30, 2025, holding that their suspension amounts to “selective treatment” as certain other officials against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated with similar allegations were not suspended from service. The court had then directed the appellants to reinstate the respondents in service.

‘Respondents directly related to misconduct’

In its analysis and reasoning, the high court bench noted a qualitative distinction in the charges framed against the respondents and others. “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 reasoned that suspension in a case of misappropriation was not just an administrative measure but a necessary step to protect the integrity of the inquiry and to prevent the accused from tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses. “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 bench noted that the single judge “failed to appreciate that the respondents are directly related to and in immediate proximity to the misconduct.”

The court stressed that the single judge “failed to recognize the substantive and legal distinction between the charge of misappropriation and a charge of dereliction of duties and also the significance of the respondents’ proximate role in the alleged misconduct.” The bench concluded that the challenged common order “suffers from a manifest error of law and cannot be sustained.”

Restoring the suspension orders against the respondents, the court further directed that the pending departmental proceedings against the officers shall now be concluded “as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.” The order clarified that the ruling will not prejudice the rights of the respondents during those ongoing proceedings.