IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20060 of 2008 Between: S. Somla, S/o. Savia, E.No. 271623, R/o. Yellamma Tanda, post: Rangapoor, Mandal: Manchal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2 The Regional Manager, (HCR), APSRTC, J.B.S., Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Manager (H.D), APSRTC, C.B.S., Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Midhani, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in removing the petitioner from service vide proceedings No. P1/2(6)/06-IBPM dated 15-03-2007, also the action of the 3rd respondent in depriving the petitioner past service along with consequential benefits through Proc. No. ST/19(69)/07-DVM-HD dated 23-06-2007 and the action of the 2nd respondent in not disposing the petitioner review petition dated 19-11-2007, received on 20-11-2007 as arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India as well as in violation of Reg 8 & 9 of the APSRTC, CC & A. Reg 1967 and consequently the petitioner request this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondents to treat him that he was reinstated into service along with all consequential benefits including the back wages in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R : The petitioner is a driver in the respondent-APSRTC. He joined in the respondent-Corporation as a driver in the year 1992. His services were regularized w.e.f. 1.7.1994. He was chargesheeted for rash and negligent driving and also lack of anticipation. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty for his lack of anticipation. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings and imposed punishment of removal from service by proceedings dated 15.3.2007. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent-The Divisional manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad. When the 3rd respondent did not pass any orders on the appeal, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2111 of 2007. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 26.3.2007. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ There is no necessity of going into all the details. The petitioner has an effective and alternative remedy of statutory appeal before the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Division. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy by filing an appeal before appropriate authority. May be this is a case where the charge is lack of anticipation and even if it is proved, it may not warrant passing of such a harsh punishment of removal from service. But, it is for the appellate authority to decide and not for this court to say anything at this stage. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider passing of any lesser punishment than that of removal in a case of this nature as is permissible under law.” 2. Consequent on the direction issued by this court it appears the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner moved a Contempt Case, which necessitated the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal. In the appeal the punishment of removal has been modified and the appellate authority ordered his reinstatement into service as a fresh Driver Grade II in the pay scale of 4730-10795 vide proceedings No.ST/19(69)/2007-DVM (HD), dated 23.6.2007. Assailing the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed review before the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager (HCR), APSRTC, Secunderabad. The review application is stated to be pending. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 11.8.2008. The respondents have filed counter. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner with lack of anticipation and not of negligence and therefore the punishment imposed by the appellate authority is severe and the same needs to be modified. 5. A further contention has been advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the appellate authority is not empowered to impose the punishment of treating the petitioner as fresh recruitee and therefore the order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of this court in K.C.NARAYANA v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC[1]. 6. Since the revision filed by the petitioner is pending with 2nd respondent, I deem it not proper to express any opinion on the contention advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the review filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24th April, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20060 OF 2008 24TH APRIL 2009. [1] 2007(5) ALD 416