H.L Narayana, vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 20 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20 AP
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

H.L Narayana, vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 6 January, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

     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.

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

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