Telangana High Court

Md. Ishaq S/O. Md. Ismail, vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, on 12 October, 2023

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

            WRIT PETITION No. 31521 OF 2012

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction of

the respondents in ordering re-engagement with continuity of

service of petitioner as a fresh driver as bad in law, arbitrary,

illegal and unjust. A consequential direction is sought to treat

the re-engagement of petitioner by the respondents as re-

engagement with continuity of service with all consequential

benefits and attendant benefits including regularization.

2. The case of the petitioner is that after due process,

he was selected and appointed as a driver in the Corporation in

1998. While he was discharging his duties as such at

Mehdipatnam Depot, a charge sheet was served on the ground

that he caused accident while driving the bus bearing No. AP

10Z 3480 near Mirja Hotel Cross road at Mehdipatnam on

25.04.2006 at about 11.00 hours on route 63 and a pedestrian

died in the said accident. Departmental enquiry followed and

dissatisfied with the explanation, petitioner was removed from

service on 26.10.2006. Appeal preferred thereagainst was

rejected. Revision before the 1st respondent was partly allowed

on 07.04.2007 appointing petitioner as a fresh driver, hence, he

was getting meager salary.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Venkateswarlu

Kesamsetty submits that petitioner was appointed as a driver in

1998 and his services were regularized in 1999 and he had put

in nearly 14 years of unblemished service in the Corporation. In

view of the same, the impugned order which directed petitioner's

reengagement as a fresh driver is contrary to the judgment of

this Court in Writ Petition No. 11039 of 1998, dated

13.06.2007.

4. In the counter, it is stated that while petitioner was

on duty on 25.04.2006, at 11.00 hours on vehicle bearing No.

AP 10Z 3480, he caused fatal accident wherein a pedestrian

died. This fact was not brought to the notice of the authorities

concerned, however, basing on the report, he was charge-

sheeted and after conducting domestic enquiry, was removed

from service. Appeal turned down. In Revision, a lenient view

was taken and petitioner was reinstated as fresh driver duly

imposing certain terms and conditions. Having accepted the

said terms and conditions and willingness in accordance with

condition No.7, now, he approached this Court after lapse of five

years which amounts to probation and reprobation and is not

permissible under law.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for Corporation Sri

Thoom Srinivas submits that order of reinstatement was passed

after obtaining consent from petitioner, hence, the question of

challenging the same that too after this length, is not at all

acceptable.

6. The main contention of petitioner is that though he

had put in 14 years of service in the Corporation, by virtue of

the order impugned, he was treated as fresh candidate and he

was denied legitimate benefits flowing therefrom. In support of

his case, petitioner relied on the order in Writ Petition No.

11039 of 1998 dated 13.06.2007, wherein this Court while

dealing with similar circumstances, held that 'in view of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. T.J.

Paul 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. Accordingly, set aside

the impugned order of the 2nd respondent and he was directed

to examine the records and determine the appropriate

punishment to be imposed on the petitioner strictly in

accordance with the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control

and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 within a period of four months

from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court'. Another

judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 37079 of 2015, dated

25.11.2015 (Ch. Raghavulu v. Telagana State Road

Transport Corporation), on which reliance has been placed by

petitioner is also to the same effect. In the said judgment, it has

been observed as under:

" The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of removal from service, dated 31.07.2014, which was confirmed by the appellate and reviewing authorities. As a final resort, he submitted petition to the Executive Director. The order of the Executive Director would show that he considers the plea of the petitioner sympathetically and orders reinstatement. On reinstatement he intends to impose some punishment. The punishment imposed in the order impugned is appointment as a fresh Conductor. The order of the Executive Director was issued in continuation to the disciplinary action initiated against petitioner which resulted in imposing punishment of removal from service. Disciplinary action and imposing of punishment against an employee is governed by 'the Regulations'. 'The Regulations' prescribe various kinds of punishments, ranging from removal from service to minor punishment such as stoppage of annual increments depending on the nature of allegations established. 'The Regulations' do not provide for punishment in the form of appointment as a fresh candidate. Whenever an authority considers plea of employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the said authority

has to act within the four corners of 'the Regulations' and cannot go beyond those 'regulations'. Therefore, imposing of such punishment is illegal. The same issue was considered by this Court in the earlier Writ Petitions which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Since the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 27.07.2015, is not sustainable, ordinarily the matter should be remitted back to the same authority for re-consideration of the issue. However, having regard to the long history of the litigation and the plea raised by the petitioner and in view of earlier orders of this Court, I am inclined to impose appropriate punishment as warranted in the facts of this case instead of remanding the matter.

The facts of this case would show that the 2nd respondent was of the opinion that the petitioner be inducted into service. The only question remains is what kind of punishment be meted out to the petitioner and treatment of the period of out of employment.

Since the petitioner was removed from service on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities and he has previously had similar misconduct, the relief that was granted by this Court in W.P.No.12857 of 2011, dated 28.04.2011, cannot be granted and the petitioner has to be imposed with more stringent punishment. In the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that interests of justice would be served, if the petitioner is imposed with the punishment of two increments with cumulative effect, while granting him continuity of service. However, he is also not entitled to claim monetary benefits or any other benefits for the period between removal from service to induction into service."

7. In view of the above, and also as the Regulations do

not provide for punishment in the form of appointment as a

fresh candidate, this Court is of the opinion that imposing such

a penalty is illegal. The order of the 1st respondent is therefore,

not sustainable. Normally, the matter should be remitted to the

same authority for re-consideration of the issue, however,

having regard to the long history of the litigation, this Court is of

the opinion to impose appropriate punishment as warranted in

the facts of the case instead of remanding the matter.

8. Insofar as imposing punishment, the allegation

levelled against petitioner is that he failed to avert the fatal

accident with pedestrian, as a result, the pedestrian came in