Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.T.Kondal Rao vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... on 1 August, 2024
APHC010729572014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 38580/2014
Between:
B.t.kondal Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P DURGA PRASAD
2. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was working as a driver and a case was registered
against him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was
charged of having committed the murder of his wife. The petitioner was sent to
HN, J
the judicial remand on 04.10.2005. The respondents having come to know
about the incident have conducted an enquiry and terminated the services of
the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was an ex-
parte enquiry and that the termination from service was not proper. He would
submit that the petitioner was acquitted in a Criminal case and placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram
Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others1 and submits that the petitioner is
entitled for reinstatement into service as the petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation submits that the
departmental proceedings and the criminal case are independent of each
other and submits that the sweep and scope of the departmental enquiry is
distinct and different when compared to the criminal case. Learned counsel
also submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of
'Dismissal', dated 18.11.2006 which was dismissed on 21.07.2012 and the
review proceedings was also dismissed on 19.11.2012. The petitioner's Mercy
petition was also dismissed on 28.10.2014. Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner violated Conduct Regulation 26 of 1963 Regulations and the
petitioner failed to intimate the facts of his arrest to the concerned authority. It
is also submitted that the petitioner failed to attend the enquiry in spite of the
(2023) INSC 1047
HN, J
service of three notices calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation
before the enquiry officer. As the petitioner failed to attend for the personal
hearing also, the respondents having no other option proceeded with the
enquiry on the available material. Learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioner does not deserve any mercy and prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The judgment of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),
Ongole would indicate that the acquittal of the petitioner is on benefit of doubt
and solely because of the failure of the prosecution in producing proper
evidence before the Court. Acquittal in the Criminal case, may not always
gives cause of action for the employee whose service was terminated to seek
reemployment or reinstatement. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the matter of G.M.Tank vs. State of Gujarat and others2 would not be
applicable the case of the petitioner.
6. Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned proceedings.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(2006) 5 SCC 446
HN, J
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH. N
Date: 01.08.2024
MSI
HN, J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 38580/2014
Date: 01.08.2024
MSI
