THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.150 OF 2021
ORDER:-
Heard Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Sri N.Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C.
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as Conductor in respondent No.2 Zone and his services were regularized on 13.10.2013. While he was working at Kalyandurgam Depot, the Depot Manager issued charge sheet, dated 02.01.2018, with one charge on the allegation that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 17.12.2017 to 28.12.2017 without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulations of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The Depot Manager, without following the A.P.S.R.T.C. (CC&A) Regulations, nominated an enquiry officer and finally, by proceedings, dated 02.05.2018, terminated the services of the petitioner with untenable grounds and the same was confirmed in appeal and review by proceedings, dated 27.2.2019 and 20.3.2019 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition, dated 04.04.2019, before the 2nd respondent with a request to consider his claim for reinstatement with all benefits. The 2nd respondent, by proceedings, dated 03.07.2019, considered the claim of the petitioner and set aside the termination order and directed the respondent Corporation to reinstate him into service as fresh Conductor but all other benefits were denied. Aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service with all attendant benefits, the present writ petition is filed.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the reviewing authority had modified the order of removal contrary to the Regulations governing employees of the Corporation and as the Regulations did not provide for imposition of punishment of appointment as Conductor afresh, no such punishment could have been imposed. To strengthen his argument, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in K.C.Narayana Vs. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad and others1, wherein it is held as under:
"In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.J.Paul's case (supra), the earlier judgments of this Court taking a contrary view must be held no longer as good law and as a result the impugned order of the reviewing authority, appointing the petitioner as a conductor afresh, must necessarily be set aside and the matter remanded to the 2nd respondent for his consideration on the question of penalty. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent is, accordingly, set aside and he is directed to examine the records and determine the appropriate punishment to be imposed on the petitioner strictly in accordance with the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. Needless to state that, since the petitioner has been continuing pursuant to the earlier order of the Reviewing Authority to appoint him afresh as a Conductor, status quo as on today shall continue till final orders are passed by the 2nd respondent on the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner herein."
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has contended that taking a lenient view, the reviewing authority has directed reinstatement of the petitioner as Conductor afresh and that can never be treated as arbitrary and illegal and the same cannot be challenged in the Court of law.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the 3 judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court cited supra. The impugned order passed by the reviewing authority is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the reviewing authority to take appropriate decision and impose punishment than that of removal, in accordance with the Regulations of the Corporation, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date : 6.1.2021 AMD 4 98 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.150 OF 2021 Date : 06.01.2021 AMD