Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T. Jafar Vali vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 1 March, 2021
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
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
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."
2007(5) ALD 416
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
