IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 8597 of 2000 Between: Y.K.L.Rao E.54721, S/o. Polaiah. H.No. 558, RTC Colony, B.B.Nellore, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. Vice-Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Vigilence & Security O/o. Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Vigilence and Security Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nellore. 4 The Vigilence and Security Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah. 5 The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nellore. 6 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. Regional Manager. Nellore Region, Nellore. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 4th Respondent herein in subjecting me to punishment without there being any misconduct on my part by issuing chargesheet vide Proc.No. Dir(V&S)/114 (250)/98, Hyderabad, dated 25/03/2000 is without jurisdiction, and the consequential charge sheet Proc.No. SB/852 (64)/97-ED-C, dated 25/04/2000 is illegal, unjust and arbitrary, contrary to regulations of the Corporation and as such set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner forthwith by paying all the beneﬁts from 13/01/1999 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioner who was working as a Senior Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short – ‘the Corporation’) ﬁled this writ petition challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.Dir(V&S)/114(250)/98 dated 25-03-2000 and the consequential charge sheet issued by the 4th respondent vide proceedings No.SB/852(64)/97-EL-C dated 25-04-2000 as illegal and arbitrary. While the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the oﬃce of the 5th respondent he was transferred and posted to work in the oﬃce of the 6th respondent vide proceedings dated 06-01-1999 and a charge sheet was issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.SB/852(64)/97-ED/NLR dated 02-02-1999 with the following charges. “Charge No.1: For having prepared and attached false veriﬁcation reports with driving licence No.5532/DL/87, 16495/83 & 187259/DL/85 as genuine instead of non-genuine licences which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regs.1963. Charge No.2: For having instigated the SSI/TML and forced him to give false reports in respect of above three driving licences thereby indulged in the act of cheating the Corporation which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regs.1963. Charge No.3: For having tampered with the oﬃcial records by putting up the forged reports on the above three driving licences stating that they were genuine one instead of non-genuine which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg.28(xv) & (xxx) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regs.1963.” In view of the denial by the petitioner for the charges levelled against him, a regular enquiry was ordered by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer, and during the course of inquiry the petitioner himself desired and requested the inquiry oﬃcer to also examine the disciplinary authority who issued the charge sheet. Acceding to his request, the inquiry oﬃcer also examined the disciplinary authority during the course of inquiry and as the disciplinary authority itself was examined during the course of inquiry, it appears that the inquiry oﬃcer addressed a letter to the petitioner expressing his inability to exercise the powers vested in him as a disciplinary authority and to pass further orders in the matter. In that view of the matter, the 2 nd respondent by the proceedings No.Dir(V&S)/114(250)/98 dated 25-03-2000 ordered for a de novo enquiry and appointed the 4th respondent to exercise the powers of the disciplinary authority and to conduct de novo enquiry and pass further orders in this regard. The said orders are questioned mainly on the ground that as much as the enquiry was already completed, there is no need to order a de novo enquiry to be conducted by the 4th respondent. Though counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled denying the allegations against the petitioner, but however, during the course of arguments, on instructions, the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the earlier disciplinary authority is not in oﬃce now and he had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and a new oﬃcer has taken charge and so in view of the subsequent events, the same disciplinary authority can continue to conduct the enquiry. As can be seen from the record, the impugned orders came to be passed as the oﬃcer who was the then disciplinary authority himself was examined in the enquiry at the request of the petitioner and expressed his inability to exercise the powers of a disciplinary authority. This writ petition is pending for the last about 8 years. Since it is stated that by now the oﬃcer who was the then disciplinary authority had retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation and due to paucity of time and since the very reason for passing the impugned orders does not exist now, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.Dir(V&S)/114(250)/98 dated 25-03-2000 and the consequential charge sheet issued by the 4th respondent vide proceedings No.SB/852(64)/97-EL-C dated 25-04-2000 by permitting the present disciplinary authority i.e. the 3rd respondent to proceed with the matter pursuant to the charges framed against the petitioner in proceedings No.SB/852(64)/97-ED/NLR dated 02-02-1999 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th October 2008 CVRK