Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Medak Dist vs K. Anandam, Medak Dist Ano
2022 Latest Caselaw 6514 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                                 AND

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                Writ Appeal No.144 of 2014

JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

        Aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2013 passed

in W.P.No. 6507 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge,

the present writ petition has been filed.


2.      Heard Mr. N. Vasudev Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash

Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that

that the respondent No.1 was appointed as a

'Conductor' on 11.07.1980 and while he was

conducting the bus on 15.07.2000, a surprise cheque

was conducted and it was noticed that the respondent

No.1 was indulged in cash and ticket irregularities.

The disciplinary authorities has initiated the

disciplinary proceedings and after conducting a

detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct in the

domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority has ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_144_2014

imposed a punishment of removal from the service on

the respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated

07.02.2001. Aggrieved by the orders of removal from

the services, the 1st respondent has approached the

Industrial Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') cum

Labour Court by filing I.D.No.145 of 2001 under

Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the

Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the I.D vide orders

dated 12.11.2003 ; aggrieved by the said orders of the

Tribunal the 1st respondent has approached this Court

by filing W.P.No.6507 of 2004 and the learned Single

Judge of this Court was pleased to set aside the orders

of removal and directed the appellant to reinstate the

respondent No.1 into service vide orders dated

14.08.2013 without appreciating any of the

contentions raised by the appellant. Learned counsel

for the appellant had further contended that aggrieved

by the said orders of the learned Single Judge, the

present Writ Appeal is filed and this Court was pleased

to grant the stay of the learned Single Judge passed on

07.02.2014 subject to the condition that the appellant ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_144_2014

deposits 50% of the back wages; upon such deposit by

the appellant, the respondent No.1 was permitted to

withdraw the same.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant had further

contended that the charge levelled against the

respondent No.1 was proved in the domestic enquiry

and the learned Single Judge inspite of the charge

being proved in the domestic enquiry was pleased to

set aside the orders of removal without appreciating

any of the contentions raised by the appellant. The

learned Single Judge never gave any findings as to how

the charge was not proved in the domestic enquiry

except stating that there was some discrepancy in the

charge memo and on that ground, the learned Single

Judge has set aside the orders of removal and the

respondent No.1 was out of employment from 2001 till

his retirement and he has also retired from services on

30.06.2011 and the learned Single Judge held that the

1st respondent has already retired from services and

directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent No.1 ::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_144_2014

into service. Once the respondent No.1 has attained

the age of superannuation, the question of

reinstatement of the respondent No.1 would not arise;

therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ

Appeal by denying any monitory benefits till the age of

superannuation of the respondent No.1. Admittedly,

the respondent has not worked from the date of

removal till his age of superannuation.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent had contended that appropriate orders be

passed in the Writ Appeal by denying all the monitory

benefits to the respondent No.1. However, the terminal

benefits may be paid by taking into account that the

respondent No.1 has served with the appellant upto

the age of his retirement on 30.06.2011.

6. This Court, having considered the rival

submissions made by the parties, is of the considered

view that the learned Single Judge has directed the

appellant to reinstate the respondent No.1 into service,

even though the respondent No.1 has attained the age ::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_144_2014

of superannuation on 30.06.2011. The question of

directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent

No.1 after his retirement would not arise; however,

since the respondent No.1 has not worked from the

date of removal till his age of superannuation, the

respondent No.1 would not be entitled for any

monitory benefits. However, the appellant shall pay the

retirement benefits by treating that the respondent

No.1 was in service upto his date of retirement and

settle all consequential benefits as expeditiously as

possible.

7. With these observations, Writ Appeal is disposed

of by granting continuity of service and all

attendant/terminal benefits to the respondent No.1

except monitory benefits. However, the back wages

which were already paid in pursuance to the

Interlocutory orders passed by this Court shall not be

recovered. No costs.

                            ::6::                    AKS,J & RRN,J
                                                     wa_144_2014

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

Date : 06.12.2022 prat