Y V Ramachandra vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 179 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 179 AP
Judgement Date : 19 January, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Y V Ramachandra vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 19 January, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

   HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION No.1267 of 2021

ORDER :

Heard Sri P. Govindarajulu, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri N.Srihari, learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that initially he was

appointed as conductor in the 2nd respondent Zone and at

present working as Rayadurg depot. While so, on the

allegation that he was absented for duties unauthroizedly on

28.12.2017 without obtaining prior permission, a charge sheet

was issued against him on 02.01.2018, 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 30.04.2018.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal and

review, the same was confirmed on 24.12.2018 and

20.03.2019 respectively. 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 03.07.2019 while granting

relief to him, ordered reinstatement as afresh Conductor.

Aggrieved by the denial of all benefits, the present writ petition

is filed.

3. 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."

4. 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.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well

2007(5) ALD 416

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