V.R.C Reddy, vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 993 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY


                   WRIT PETITION NO.4104 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Govindarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned standing counsel for Sri N.Srihari appearing on behalf of

the respondents.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that he is working as Driver on

contract basis in the 3rd respondent depot. While he was working at

Markapur Depot, the depot Manager terminated the services of the

petitioner by proceedings, dated 05.01.2010 on the allegation that he

was absent to duties unauthorizedly and the same was modified by

review authority i.e., Regional Manager, Prakasam Region by

proceedings, dated 05.12.2011 appointing him as a fresh contract

driver and further instructed to report of duty within seven days from

the date of receipt of the copy. But due to delay in reporting the duty,

the Regional Manager by order, dated 03.01.2014, cancelled

appointment order and further advised him to make an appal before

the 2nd respondent.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal, dated 23.01.2014 before the

2nd respondent with a request to reinstate him into service, but the 2nd

respondent failed to consider his appeal. Thereafter, he filed Writ

Petition before this Court and in compliance of the orders of this Court

in Writ Petition No.8477 of 2019, dated 24.01.2020, the 2nd respondent

passed proceedings, dated 22.07.2020 reinstating the petitioner as

fresh driver. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent in so far against to

him is denial of continuity of service and other attendant benefits, the

present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

reviewing authority had passed the proceedings contrary to the

Regulations governing employees of the Corporation and as the

Regulations did not provide for imposition of punishment of

appointment as Driver afresh, no such punishment could have been

imposed. To strengthen his argument, he relied upon a judgment of

this Court in K.C.Narayana v. 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 APSRTC 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."

5. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent

corporation has contended that the 2nd respondent passed

proceedings, dated 22.07.2020 reinstating the petitioner as Driver

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 reviewing authority is, accordingly, set-aside and the

2007(5)ALD 416

matter is remanded back to the reviewing authority to take appropriate

decision 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.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to

costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any pending

in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 19.02.2021

IS