The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Rr ... vs M. Shankaraiah, Medak District
2022 Latest Caselaw 2694 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                 AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



             WRIT APPEAL No.1170 of 2014

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 31.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.14444 of 2002.

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent

herein (employee) has preferred the writ petition before this

Court being aggrieved by the award of the Industrial

Tribunal dated 10.04.2001 in I.D.No.149 of 2000 and also

claimed reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The

facts further reveal that the charge sheet was issued in

respect of cash and ticket irregularities and after following

due process of law, the employee was held guilty of the

misconduct and finally a punishment order inflicting the

punishment of removal from service was passed in exercise

of powers conferred under the Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations.

The employee raised an industrial dispute and an award

was passed holding the removal of the employee from

service as just and reasonable. In those circumstances,

the writ petition was preferred. The learned Single Judge

came to the conclusion that no misconduct, based upon

evidence, is made out in the matter and there was no

misappropriation, nor was there any collection of lesser

fare from the passengers than required. In those

circumstances, the learned Single Judge has interfered

with the quantum of punishment and has directed

reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service

and attendant benefits, however without back wages.

The order was passed by the learned Single Judge in

the year 2013 and the employee was reinstated into service

pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge

and he has also attained the age of superannuation on

31.01.2018, as informed by the learned counsel for the

employee.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ

appeal was preferred in the year 2014 and after 2014, no

steps were taken by the employer for early listing of the

matter permitting the employee to retire from service.

Therefore, at this juncture, this Court does not find any

reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge. Otherwise also, on merits, no case is made

out for interfering with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

14.06.2022 vs