IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 22365 OF 2011 Between: Y. Raghunath. - - - Petitioner. AND A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Road, Hyderabad and three others. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.22365 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 04-12-2010 in proceedings No.Peshi/675(20)/10-RM:NZB, dated 04-12-2010 in so far as denying the past service, continuity, attendant benefits and back wages as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to treat the reinstatement of the Petitioner as a fresh driver with that of reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows : The Petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (For short, ‘the A.P.S.R.T.C.’) in the month of May, 1996 after undergoing due process of selection and his services as such were regularized on 01-08-1998. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with an accident, which occurred on 19-02-2010 while he was plying the service with Bus No.AP28Z – 3881 on the route Vinjamour to Armoor near Amebdkar Statue, at Hill Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, whereby the pedestrian met with his death on 03-03-2010. Subsequently, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 19-03-2010 and the third Respondent issued the charge sheet dated 19-03-2010 contemplating the following charge : “For having driven the bus No.AP28Z-3881 on 19-02- 2010 on route Vinjamour – Armoor with lack of anticipation at about 21-30 hours at Ambedkar Statue, of Hill Colony the bus hit to one pedestrian by name Sri K. Kotheshwara Rao, aged 45 years, with bus front left side bumper, resulting in injuries caused to the pedestrian, who was shifted at local hospital Macherla, later admitted at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was expired on 03-03-2010, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. No.28 (ix - a & b) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. Subsequently, the Petitioner submitted his detailed explanation denying his liability in causing the death of the pedestrian as alleged in the charge sheet. While so, the third respondent issued proceedings No.P1/2(2)/10-ARMR, dated 26-07-2010 removing the Petitioner from the service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 29-10-2010. Further, aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred Review Petition before the second Respondent and the second Respondent by his order dated 04-12-2010, set aside the order of removal of the Petitioner and directed that the Petitioner should be reinstated into service as fresh driver on regular basis but without continuity of service and back wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4- A.P.S.R.T.C. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that this Court in W.P. No.12857 of 2011, dated 28-04-2011, considered the case of the Petitioner under similar circumstances and directed reinstatement with continuity of service from the date of his dismissal to reinstatement. The case of the Petitioner in that case was that he was removed from service after conducting due enquiry for having issued less worth of Rs.10/- den E-2 tickets which constitutes misconduct in terms of regulation No.28 (vi) (a) & (x) of APSRTC, Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred Appeal, which was confirmed. Subsequently the Petitioner preferred Review Petition before the second Respondent therein, the second Respondent Corporation took into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the Review Petition setting aside the order of termination of removal and ordered for fresh appointment. Challenging the same, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order of removal from service issued in proceedings No.02/95(07)10-DS-NZB-2, dated 01-10-2010 as well as the order of the second Respondent issued in Proceedings No.Peshi/675(21)/10-RM:NZB, dated 21-02-2011 in not granting the continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages as arbitrary, unjust, capricious and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to treat the reinstatement into service as fresh as that of reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. This Court after considering the case held as follows : “4. It is not in dispute before this court that the rules are regulations of the Corporation do not provide for reinstating him into service as fresh conductor. This is not even disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation considering the unblemished past service of 20 years of petitioner, the reviewing authority has taken a lenient view. Therefore, the impugned punishment is modified and the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service from the date of dismissal to reinstatement. It is made clear that by virtue of this order, the petitioner shall not be entitled for monetary or any other benefits treating duly the removal period as not spent on duty”. In the instant case the Petitioner was removed form service for causing the accident: the Revisional Authority considering his long standing service i.e. from 1976 to 2010 set aside the order of removal and reinstated the Petitioner as regular driver afresh and there is no doubt that the rules and regulations of the Corporation do not provide for reinstating him into service as fresh driver. Therefore, following the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12857 of 2011, dated 28-04-2011, the impugned order of punishment is modified and the Petitioner herein is entitled for continuity of service from the date of dismissal to reinstatement. However, it is made clear that by virtue of this order, the Petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary or any other benefits treating duly the removal period as not spent on duty. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J. November 22, 2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 250 WRIT PETITION No.22365 OF 2011 November, 22, 2011 DSH