The Depot Manager, vs K. Krishna Murthy,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1276 AP

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

      HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                &
              HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                      WRIT APPEAL No.106 of 2021

                       (Through video conferencing)

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Madanapalle
Depot-I, Chittoor District, and others                       ... Appellants

                                  Versus

K. Krishna Murthy, S/o.Eswaraiah, aged
37 years, Occ: Ex-Conductor, APSRTC,
Madanapalle Bus Depot-I, R/o.Ramapuram
Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District,
and others                                                  ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellants          :      Mr.P.Durga Prasad for
                                           Mr.K.Narsi   Reddy,     standing
                                           counsel

Counsel for respondents 1 to 7      :      Ms. S.V. Indira
Counsel for respondent No.8         :      Govt. Pleader for Transport

                             JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt:02.03.2021

(ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ)

We have heard Mr. P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. K. Narsi Reddy - learned standing counsel for the appellants,

Ms. S.V. Indira, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7 and learned

Govt. Pleader for Transport for respondent No.8.

This appeal is directed against an order dated 14.10.2019 passed by

a learned single Judge in W.P.No.22084 of 2017. The order reads as

follows:

"This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking to declare the proceedings

Nos.T3/785/W12/2017,T3/785/W17/2017,T3/785/W16/2017

HCJ & CPKJ W.A.No.106 of 2021

,T3/785/W13/2017, T3/785/W14/2017, T3/785/W15/2017,

dated 17.04.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent relating to

rejection for reinstatement and contrary to law, as illegal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners were charged for the offence for furnishing fake

SSC certificates, while obtaining employment and the

petitioners faced trial in CC 711 of 2014 and by virtue of the

judgment of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madanapalle, dated 28.9.2016, the petitioners were

acquitted. In spite of the said judgment, the petitioners

were not reinstated into service. The petitioners made a

representation to the 1st respondent, dated 22.10.2016, but

the said representation was not considered. The counsel

relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P No.35126

of 1998, wherein the court under similar circumstances held

that 'there was no justification for the corporation to deny

the benefit of reinstatement into service as fresh Conductor

without back wages and continuity of service to the

petitioner as was done in the case of Sri P. Bheemaiah and

Sri J. Laxmaiah'. The Hon'ble High court also directed that

the respondents shall consider the representation of the

petitioners made therein and reinstate the petitioners into

HCJ & CPKJ W.A.No.106 of 2021

services, if it is found that the petitioners were also

acquitted along with the others in the said case.

4. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners

were acquitted of their charges and hence, in the above

circumstances, this court deems it fit to direct the

respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service,

without the benefit of service and payment of back wages.

5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed

of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel,

miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the writ petition

shall stand closed."

In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, the

petitioners had stated as follows:

"4. I respectfully submit the petitioners appointed as

Conductors in through regular selection process, and while

working as Conductors, petitioners charged with committing

misconduct for production of bogus SSC Certificates, secured

employment as Conductor in APSRTC thus, cheated the

corporation, based on the allegations, petitioners subjected

to enquiry proceedings, on submission of vitiated enquiry

report, later, filed filing objections and representations,

review petitions and appeals, since not considered, finally

the 1st respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings,

imposing the major punishment of removal, violating the

principles of natural justice, violating not only Article 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India, but also initiated

HCJ & CPKJ W.A.No.106 of 2021

criminal proceedings in Cr.No.230/13 u/s 420, 468, 471 and

474 r/w 34 IPC, of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle,

Chittoor District for the same allegations to that of

disciplinary proceedings."

A perusal of the above, goes to show that the petitioners themselves

stated that an order of removal pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding was

passed.

The learned single Judge, in the course of the order, did not advert

to the aspect relating to departmental proceedings and imposition of

penalty and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is

vitiated. On this ground alone, we set aside the impugned order.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, by setting aside the

impugned order. The case is remanded back for fresh consideration by the

learned single Judge. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                               C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
MRR