IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 655 OF 2010 Between: K.Satyanarayana Singh ..... PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Guntur Region, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Guntur and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 655 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner who was working as a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service by the 3rd respondent’s order dated 15.09.2004 on the ground that he was negligent in driving the vehicle resulting in the death of a pedestrian on 19.04.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was disposed of by the 2nd respondent by order dated 02.12.2004, modifying the order of removal and directing as under: “Therefore, keeping in view of above reason, I am taking a lenient view in considering the appeal and ordered to reinstate the appellant into service, subject to the following terms & conditions: 1. He shall pay security deposit afresh. 2. His pay shall be fixed at the minimum time scale which shall have permanent effect. 3. The intervening period from the date of removal till he reports for duty where he is posted shall be treated as ‘Not on duty’ for the purpose of increments. On reinstatement, he is directed to appear before Regional Manager, Guntur within 7 days from the date of receipt of these proceedings for further posting orders, otherwise the orders stands to be cancelled.” It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has been reinstated. Subsequently, the criminal prosecution against the petitioner under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code was ended in acquittal vide Judgment dated 04.04.2007 in C.C.No.427 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent Appellate authority dated 02.12.2004 and to quash the same declaring as arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved was perverse and cannot form basis for the impugned order. That apart, in view of the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner in C.C.No.427 of 2006, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner shall be re-instated with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material on record, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The law is well settled that the interference by this Court in exercise of Judicial review with the findings of facts arrived at in the departmental enquiry is not warranted except in a case of mala fides or where there is no evidence to support the findings. Even where two views are possible on appreciation of the same evidence, the finding of fact recorded in the enquiry will not be upset unless there is a glaring perversity or unreasonableness in such finding. The conclusions of the 2nd respondent in the instant case cannot be held to have suffered from any such perversity. That apart, the impugned order was passed on 02.12.2004, whereas the present writ petition has been filed after more than six years. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches also. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 21.01.2010 Ivd