M Y Thimmaraju vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 225 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 225 AP
Judgement Date : 20 January, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M Y Thimmaraju vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 20 January, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                     WRIT PETITION No.1342 OF 2021

ORDER:-

       This Writ Petition is filed under                  Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-


       ".......pleased to issue writ, order or directions more in the
      nature    of   Writ    of   Mandamus    declaring   the    proceedings
      No:PA/19(7)/19-ED-K, Dt:3-7-2019 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 in so for against to the petitioner 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 and pass......"

2. 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.

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

appointed as Conductor in respondent No.2 zone and at present,

working in Rayadurg Depot. While the petitioner was working in

Kalyandurg Depot, the Depot Manager issued charge sheet, dated

7.3.2018, with two charges on the allegation that he was absent for

duties unauthorisedly on 4.2.2018 and remained absent till the

date of removal without obtaining prior permission. The Depot

Manager, Kalyandurg Depot, without appreciating the explanation

of the petitioner to the alleged charges and without following the

A.P.S.R.T.C. (CC&A) Regulations, nominated an enquiry officer to

conduct enquiry into the alleged charges and finally, by

proceedings, dated 28.4.2018, the petitioner was terminated from

services with untenable grounds and the same was confirmed in

appeal and review by proceedings, dated 27.2.2019 and 20.3.2019

respectively. The petitioner filed a petition, dated 4.4.2019, before

respondent No.2 herein with a request to consider his claim for

reinstatement with all benefits. On 3.7.2019, respondent No.2

issued proceedings, dated 3.7.2019, considering his claim but

while granting the relief to the petitioner, ordered for reinstatement

as a fresh Conductor. Aggrieved by the denial of continuity of

service, back wages and other attendant benefits, the present writ

petition is filed.

4. 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

2007 (5) ALD 416

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 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.

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 matter is remanded back to the reviewing