Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Palla Sivakumar vs Ap State Road Transport Corporation on 27 September, 2024

APHC010479492021
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                                             [3310]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

          FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                           PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                         WRIT PETITION NO: 28893 OF 2021

Between:

Palla Sivakumar                                                                    ...PETITIONER

                                               AND

A.P.State
    State Road Transport Corporation and Others                             ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

  1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. GP FOR SERVICES III

  2. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC

  3. M SOLOMON RAJU

The Court made the following:
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India "issue issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for ent entire ire records connected to order in I.D.No. 113 of 2015 on the th file of Industrial Tribunal--cum- Labour Court, Guntur i.e 4 respondent as published in G.O.Rt.No.156 Labour, Factories, boilers and Insurance Medical Services (OP) Department 04.06.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service dul dulyy granting all other consequential benefits, such as continuity of service and back wages etc., to the petitioner for the period during which he was kept out of service in pursuance of order rd dated 13.08.2014 of the 3 respondent and pass such other and further orders".

2. Heard Mr. V. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. M. Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/

APSRTC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner

was appointed as Casual Conductor in 1st respondent from 30.03.1999 and

his services were regularized as Conductor from 04.08.2000. The

respondents issued a Charge Sheet against the petitioner on 21.01.2014 on

certain irregularities and initiated enquiry. Basing on certain erroneous

findings of the inquiry officer has issued show-cause notice for removal on

25.07.2014. Subsequently removed the petitioner from service by order dated

13.08.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal

and same was dismissed on 17.01.2015 by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager,

Nellore. Assailing the same, the petitioner has preferred a review before the

2nd respondent and same was also dismissed on 09.07.2021 on account of

delay. As such, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal vide

I.D.No.113 of 2015 seeking to set aside the removal order dated 17.01.2015

and to direct them to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all

consequential benefits, but the same was dismissed without examination of

witness. Assailing the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. Per contra, the respondents 1 to 3 have filed counter-affidavit and

mainly contended that the petitioner was awarded with punishment of deferment of annual increments in different cases of cash and ticket

irregularities. The punishment of annual increment deferment for one year

which shall have no effect on his future increment was imposed on him in the

year 2009 on a complaint lodged by a passenger against him. The explanation

submitted by the petitioner is not convincing. The enquiry officer has given all

reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case and submitted

report, in which all the four charges levelled against the petitioner were proved

beyond reasonable doubt. After going through the entire evidence available on

record, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal submitted by the

petitioner, so also review and I.D.No.113 of 2015. The statement given by the

ticketless passenger in the enquiry was not considered as it is treated as an

afterthought by the 3rd respondent and the penalty of removal from service is

in proportion of the gravity of offence committed. The respondent corporation

transparently followed principles of natural justice at every stage in the subject

matter. Hence the grounds urged in the writ petition are neither sustainable

nor tenable in the eye of law. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Perused the record.

6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued

that the respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the

petitioner and without examining the female passenger straight away imposed

punishment without following law is vague and not tenable. Basing on

erroneous findings of the inquiry officer, the 3rd respondent removed the

petitioner from service by order dated 13.08.2014 without there being any iota of evidence. Further, the learned Tribunal also did not appreciate the case of

the petitioner and imposed major penalty of removal of service, which is not

warranted in the instant case. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed

on record the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Vijay v. State of

Maharashtra and Others"1, wherein it was held as follows:

" 12. The appellant was elected in terms of the provisions of a statute. The right to be elected was created by a statute and, thus, can be taken away by a state. It is now well settled that when a literal reading of the provision giving retrospective effect does not produce absurdity or anomaly, the same would not be construed to be only prospective. The negation is not a rigid rule and varies with the intention and purport of the legislature, but to apply it in such a case is a doctrine of fairness. When a law is enacted for the benefit of the community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision, the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. The appellant does not and cannot question the competence of the legislature in this behalf."

8. In "Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr.

Manu and Another"2, wherein the Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court held

as follows:-

"49. The proposition of law that a clarificatory provision may be made applicable retrospectively is so well established that we do not wish to burden this judgment by referring to ruling in the same vein. However, it is necessary to dilate on the role of a clarification/ excplanation to a statute and how the same may be identified and distinguished from a substantive amendment.

....

52. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could be culled out:

(2006) 6 SCC 289

2023 SCC OnLine SC 640

i) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted.

ii) In order for a subsequent order/ provision/ amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively.

iii) An explanation/ clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision.

iv) Merely because a provision is described as a clarification/ explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively".

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

according to Point No.1 specified in Circular No.49/95-OPD-T, dated

24.07.1995, Section 178 of M.V.Act, 1988 empowers the checking officials to

levy penalty extending up to Rs. 500/- on every passenger not in possession

of a valid ticket whether or not he/ she paid the fair. But the checking officials

did not levy any penalty and did favour to the ticketless passenger and took

statement under undue influence by dictating him. Even though, the petitioner

has good record having 14 years of long service, but the depot officials did not

consider either seniority or past services of the petitioner. Without considering

the said aspects the officials shown bias while awarding punishment.

10. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this

Court with regard to Circular No. PD 01/2019, dated 01.01.2019 offences are

divided into 5 minor cases. In the present FC case which is Rs. 33/- fare

collected and ticket not issued falls under major case 1. All FC cases for less than Rs. 50/- in mofussil services falls under major case 1 category and the

punishment is deferment of increment for one year with cumulative effect

besides recovery of 10 times of the total ticket amount. Therefore, suspension

is unwarranted.

11. It is apparent on the face of the record that punishment awarded by

the respondent for removal of the petitioner for small irregularity is highly

illegal and arbitrary, which is not within the powers given by the governing Act.

No doubt in accordance with the Circular No. PD 01/2019, dated 01.01.2019,

the punishment imposed on the petitioner in the present case is just Rs. 33/-,

which false under major 1 category and the punishment is deferment of

increment for one year with cumulative effect besides recovery of 10 times of

the total ticket amount. The respondents instead of imposing deferment of

increment for one year, straight away imposed punishment for removal of the