G Eswaraiah vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1362 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1362 AP
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

G Eswaraiah vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 4 March, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITION No.21563 of 2020

ORDER:-

      This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India seeking the following relief:-

      "....to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature
      of   writ    of   Mandamus,      declaring   the   proceedings    No.
      PA/19(91)/2016, ED-KZ, Dt. 16.11.2016 of the       2nd   respondent in

so far as denying the continuity of service as illegal and violative of principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Conductor in the respondent corporation with continuity of service in the interest of justice."

Learned Sri S.D.Gowd, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and learned standing counsel for Sri N. Srihari appearing on behalf

of the respondents.

It is contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as

Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 16.02.1989. While so,

on the allegation that while the petitioner on duty on 10.02.2015

on the route Hindupur to Anantapur, a check was exercised at

Somendapalli by the TTIs of Regional Enforcement Squad,

Anantapur and alleged to have found certain irregularities, basing

on the report of TTIs, a Charge Sheet dated 20.02.2015 was issued

to the petitioner, for which he submitted explanation, but the

disciplinary authority, without considering his explanation,

appointed enquiry officer to enquire into the charge leveled against

him. After conducting the departmental enquiry and initiating

disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority terminated the

petitioner from service vide orders dated 03.09.2015. Aggrieved

thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal and review, the same

was rejected on 23.01.2016 and 01.07.2016 respectively by the

respondents 3 and 4, thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition

before the reviewing authority/2nd respondent. The reviewing

authority set-aside the termination order and directed the

respondent corporation to reinstate him into service vide orders

dated 16.11.2016. Aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service,

back wages and other attendant benefits, the present writ petition

is filed.

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."

2007(5) ALD 416

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

and that can never be treated as arbitrary and illegal and the same

cannot be challenged in the Court of law.

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,