H.C Anjaneyulu, vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1410 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1410 AP
Judgement Date : 5 March, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

H.C Anjaneyulu, vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 5 March, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                      WRIT PETITION No.5318 of 2021

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(79)/2016, ED-KZ, Dt. 25.11.2016 of the        2nd   respondent in

denying the continuity of service with all attendant benefits as illegal and contrary to APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations and Judgments of this Court and set aside the same in so far 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."

Sri P. Govindarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and

learned standing counsel 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. While so, on the

allegation that while he was working at Puttaparty Depot, the

Depot Manager issued charge Sheet alleging that he committed

cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the service on

24.02.2015. The Depot Manager, without appreciation of the

explanation submitted by the petitioner and without following the

APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations, nominated an enquiry officer to

conduct enquiry and finally terminated the petitioner vide

proceedings dated 27.10.2015. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

preferred an appeal and review, the same was rejected on

16.03.2016 and 14.07.2016 respectively by the respondents,

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 25.11.2016. 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."

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.

2007(5) ALD 416

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 referred supra.

The impugned order passed by the reviewing authority is,