IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 1296 of 2002 Between: P. Bheemaiah S/o Ramaswamy R/o Hamlet Chegurthy Post, Mandulapally Village, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Karimnagar-II Depot, Karimnagar District. 2 Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar District. 3 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour, Rep. by its Presiding Officer Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a direction, order or writ, more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. E2/331(2)/91-KRMR-I dated 29-11-1991 issued by the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare the award in I.D.No.51/2000 dated 29-11- 2001 of the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District as being unfair and unreasonable violating the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and issued consequetial directins to the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits such as salary, increments, leave etc., Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following :..... ORDER: The petitioner herein was appointed as a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. through the process of selection. He was issued the charge Memo dated 29-11-1991 calling upon him to submit explanation to the allegation that he produced a bogus SSC certificate and after conducting enquiry the petitioner was terminated from the service on 15-04-1992. Questioning the same the petitioner raised a dispute in I.D. No.51 of 2000 on the file of the learned Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The learned Tribunal passed an award dismissing the said I.D. on 07-08-2001. Aggrieved by the termination order dated 15-04-1992 and the award dated 07-08-2001, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two grounds that the petitioner was terminated from the service only on the allegation that SSC certificate produced by him at the time of appointment was bogus, based on which, a criminal case was registered vide C.C. No.1256 of 1992 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar. After full-fledged trial, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class rendered a judgment on 05-06-1996 acquitting the petitioner for the said charge and though the said judgment has become final, the learned Tribunal did not consider the same, though it was referred to as Ex.W-1. Therefore, non-consideration of the evidence on record is arbitrary and illegal on the part of the learned Tribunal. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The other ground raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner is that one J. Laxmaiah, a Conductor appointed in the respondent Corporation along with the petitioner, was also removed from the service on the similar allegation of production of bugs SSC certificate. Aggrieved by the same, he raised dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and the said I.D. was dismissed. Thereafter, the said J. Laxmaiah was reinstated into service as per the orders of this Court in WP.No.3368 of 1997 dated 17.10.1997. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is also similar to that of J. Laxmaiah and that the petitioner is entitled to the similar treatment that was given to J. Laxmaiah. On behalf of the respondent Corporation the learned standing counsel submits that it is a case of removal from the service on the ground of production of bogus SSC certificate and the validity of the removal order was considered by the learned Tribunal, which passed the award confirming the order of removal. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Insofar as the second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is true that J. Laxmaiah was taken into service afresh not by the Corporation on its own but in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.3368 of 1997. The learned counsel produced a copy of the judgment dated 17-10-1997 passed by this Court in W.P. No.3368 of 1997. It appears that J. Laxmaiah was also terminated from the service on the similar allegation as levelled against the petitioner. Questioning the said termination, he filed I.D. No.112 of 1992 on the file of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal passed an award dated 12-06-1996 confirming the order of removal. Aggrieved by the same, he filed W.P. No.3368 of 1997. This Court by order dated 17-10-1997 passed the following order. “In the result, we modify the punishment of removal of the petitioner-workman from service to one of reinstatement into service afresh without back wages and without continuity of service. The respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” In compliance with the order made in the W.P. No.3368 of 1997 the respondent Corporation issued the proceedings No.P1/372(38)/98-RM dated 05-05- 1998 reinstating the petitioner therein into service, that is how said J. Laxmaiah was reinstated into the service. Though there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the allegation levelled against the petitioner as well as J. Laxmaiah is similar and though both of them were acquitted for the alleged offence, it cannot be said that a workman is automatically entitled to reinstatement into service as it is for the department to take appropriate action in a given case. But in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court found that the penalty imposed against J. Laxmaiah was disproportionate to the charge leveled against him and modified the order of removal to that of reinstatement into service afresh without continuity of service and without back wages. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that similarly situated person was reinstated into service in compliance with the order passed by this Court in WP.No.3368 of 1997, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. In the result, the punishment of removal of the petitioner-workman from service is modified to one of reinstatement into service afresh without back wages and without continuity of service. The respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 21-08-2008 Note: Issue certified copy of the order in three days. B/o. LSK