HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
W.P. No.5034 of 2021
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
".....to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.PA/19(117)/2016-ED-KZ, dated 25.11.2016 of the 2nd respondent in denying the continuity of service with all attendant benefits, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations and Judgments of this Hon'ble Court and set aside the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including attendant benefits and full back wages."
2. Heard Sri P. Govindarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Srihari, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that initially he was appointed as conductor in the 2nd respondent Zone and at present working at Kadiri depot. While so, on the allegation that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the service on 08.01.2016, a charge sheet was issued against him on 23.01.2016, for which he submitted explanation, but the disciplinary authority, without considering his explanation, nominated an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry into the alleged charge leveled against him. After conducting enquiry, the disciplinary authority terminated the petitioner from service vide order dated 06.06.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal and 2 review, the same were confirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the 2nd respondent with a request to consider his claim for re-instatement with all benefits. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 25.11.2016 set aside the termination order, but while granting relief to him, ordered re-instatement as afresh Conductor. Aggrieved by the denial of all benefits, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the 2nd respondent 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."
1 2007(5) ALD 416 2 3
5. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation has contended that taking a lenient view, the 2nd respondent 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.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the 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 2nd respondent is, accordingly, set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent 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.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
01-03-2021 bcj 3