IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7888 of 1999 Between: R Ratha Naik, S/o. Laskar Naik, r/o. Narsaraopet, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad- 20 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by its Depot Manager, Narasaraopet, Guntur 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 may be pleased to call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. P2/225(28)/98-NRT, dt.24-8-1998, keeping the petitioner under put off duty as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, unfair labour practice, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits, and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 7888 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner questions the proceedings dated 24.08.1998, whereby the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager, Narsaraopet, had placed him under put-off duty, pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 2. The petitioner was selected to the post of a driver on 20.12.1997 and, thereafter, was sent for training. On completion of training from 30.12.1997 to 05.02.1998, he was posted as a driver and he joined duty at Vijayawada Depot-I on 10.02.1998. Subsequently, he commenced working under the 2nd respondent from 21.02.1998 onwards. The petitioner’s grievance is that he was kept on “put-off duty” with effect from 24.08.1998 alleging that the endorsement made in the petitioner’s driving licence was not issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur. The petitioner’s contention is that since the allegation levelled against him amounted to misconduct, a charge sheet should have been issued, an enquiry should have been conducted thereafter and only on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, could action have been taken against him in accordance with the regulations. The petitioner’s representation was replied to. He was informed that, as per the records of the Regional Transport Authority, he was issued with a licence on 21.04.1990 and that by the endorsement dated 21.08.1992 whereby he claimed that he was permitted to drive Heavy Goods Vehicles and the endorsement in proceedings No.432/B6/93 whereby he claimed to have been permitted to drive Heavy Passenger Vehicles, were not genuine. Petitioner would contend that the endorsements were genuine and, since he possessed a valid driving licence, he could not have been placed on “put-off duty” and that, in any event, the regulations did not enable the respondents to keep the petitioner on “put-off” duty. 3. After filing of the writ petition, WPMP.No.34019 of 1999 was filed to permit the petitioner to amend the prayer in the main writ petition, on the ground that the petitioner was subsequently removed from service by proceedings dated 12.08.1999. In the affidavit filed in support thereof, the petitioner stated that he was issued a show cause notice of removal on 31.07.1999, that he had submitted his explanation thereto, that the 2nd respondent had passed the order of removal on 12.08.1999, and a copy thereof was received by him on 14.09.1999. The petitioner would contend that the order of the 2nd respondent is bereft of reasons and is liable to be quashed. 4. A perusal of the proceedings of the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Narsaraopet, dated 12.08.1999, would show that the petitioner was engaged as a Casual Driver, vide orders dated 09.02.1998, with effect from 19.02.1998 subject to verification of the genuineness of his driving licence and other certificates produced by him at the time of selection, that on verification it was found that the driving licence submitted by him was not genuine, that the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, had informed that the driving licence No.704/90 dated 25.04.1990, was issued to the petitioner to drive Light Motor Vehicles only and that the Heavy Goods Vehicle and the Heavy Passenger Vehicle endorsements were not issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, and the same was communicated by the Zonal Vigilance and Security Officer at Vijayawada. A charge sheet dated 28.08.1998 was also issued calling for the petitioner’s explanation and a copy thereof was sent to the residential address of the petitioner by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, but the same was returned with the endorsement on the cover “not known”. It is also stated, in the said proceedings dated 12.08.1999, that the entire records were sent to the Chief Inspector (Enquiry) together with the relevant records for conducting a detailed enquiry and the Enquiry Officer, who conducted a detailed enquiry, had submitted his report and that the Depot Manager, on going through the Enquiry Officer’s report, had agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, a show cause notice proposing imposition of punishment of removal from service was issued to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 31.07.1999 and, since his reply was not found convincing, he was imposed the punishment of removal from service, besides forfeiting the Security Deposit paid to the Corporation. 5. The very appointment of the petitioner was subject to verification of the genuineness of the driving licence produced by him. The requirement for being appointed as a driver in the APSRTC is that the applicant should possess a valid driving licence for driving Heavy Passenger Vehicle/Heavy Goods Vehicle. Since, on verification, the petitioner was found to possess only a Light Motor Vehicle licence and the endorsement that he was entitled to drive Heavy Passenger Vehicle/Heavy Goods Vehicle was found not genuine, disciplinary action was initiated and, on an enquiry being conducted and the allegation levelled against him having been held established, he was removed from service. 6. I see no reason to permit the petitioner to discharge the functions of a driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C., since he does not even possess a valid driving licence, to drive Heavy Passenger Vehicle/Heavy Goods Vehicle, which is the minimum requirement for his being appointed as a driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C. I am not inclined to examine the question whether the action of the respondents in placing the petitioner under “put-off duty” pending further action is valid or not. It is well settled that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary. I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of a person who has obtained employment surreptitiously on the basis of an alleged driving licence permitting him to drive Heavy Goods Vehicles/Heavy Passenger Vehicles, which was later found not genuine. The order of removal does not necessitate interference by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would, however, contend that the Corporation had, on several cases, on their own accord and on the employees subsequently producing a valid driving licence, re-appointed them as drivers in the Organisation. There is nothing on record to show whether the petitioner was also given any such benefit. It is made clear that the order now passed dismissing the writ petition would not preclude the respondent Corporation from considering the case of the petitioner for being appointed as a driver, if they so choose to do so, in case the petitioner is found to possess a valid driving licence to drive Heavy Passenger Vehicles/Heavy Goods Vehicles. 8. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 27th February, 2008 v v To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies