IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3201 of 2008 Between: Parikala Subba Rao S/o. Nagabhushanam Devargunta Village, Nuzvid Mandal Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deport Manager, APSRTC, Nuzvid Depot, Nuzvid, Krishna Dist. 2 The Chief Inspector, Nuzvid Depot, APSRTC, Nuzvid, Krishna Dist. 3 A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Chairmen, Bus Bhavan, RTC 'X' Roads, APSRTC, Hyderabad 4 The Regional Manager, Krishna, Vijayawada of A.P.S.R.T.C. Pandit J. Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 5 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tiruvuru Depot, Tiruvuru, Krishna Dist. ....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 any writ or order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in imposing the Condition No. 4 & 5 while passing re- instatement into service in his proceedings No.PA/19(80)/2004- RM(K) Vijayawada dated 26-08-2005 as illegal, arbitrary, against the jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice and null and void in the eye of law, consequently direct the respondents to pay the arrears and to settle the pensionary beneﬁts calculating the entire service into consideration and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.P.REVATHI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3201 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in imposing condition Nos.4 and 5 while reinstating the petitioner into service through Proceedings No.PA/19(80)/2004-RM(K) Vijayawada, dated 26-8- 2005 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the arrears and settle the pensionary benefits taking the entire service into consideration. It appears, the petitioner while serving as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation at Nuzvid Bus Depot, Krishna District, a criminal case was lodged against him and was tried in S.C.No.30 of 1996 on the ﬁle of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. He was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 on 8-10-1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service on 12-5-1998. Assailing the order of conviction, petitioner ﬁled an appeal in Crl.A.No.1063 of 1997 and this Court by Judgment dated 27-3-2003 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction ordered and sentence imposed against him. Immediately, petitioner ﬁled a representation requesting to reinstate him into service. His request was turned down by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, he ﬁled a review petition before the 4th respondent, who by an Order dated 26-8-2005 directed his reinstatement with the riders (i) that the period from the date of his removal till he reports for duty where he was posted shall be treated as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes, and (ii) his annual increment when next falls due be deferred for a period of one year, which shall have eﬀect on his future increments. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. It may be necessary to notice that the petitioner already retired from service on 30-6-2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suﬃce to notice that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the oﬀence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 on 8-10-1997. In view of his conviction, he was removed from service on 12-5-1998. On appeal against the conviction, he was acquitted by this Court on 27-3-2003. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation, which was rejected by the disciplinary authority. Ultimately, the reviewing authority passed the impugned order directing reinstatement of the petitioner with the above riders. In a case of this nature, petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service automatically on the acquittal order passed by this Court in the criminal appeal. This is not a case where the alleged oﬀence arose during the course of employment. Respondents could not have conducted any enquiry into such matters. But, strangely, when the petitioner approached the disciplinary authority after his acquittal on 27-3-2003, he was denied reinstatement saying that there was no honourable acquittal. This amounts to sitting over the judgment of this Court and taking action in view of his involvement in the criminal case. Further, the reviewing authority, though directed reinstatement, imposed the two riders, as noticed above, as if it is a departmental disciplinary proceedings, which is being set aside and reinstatement is being ordered by him. This approach of the 4th respondent is atrocious and without any jurisdiction. Petitioner, after his acquittal in the criminal case, in the appeal ﬁled before this Court, on 27-3-2003, is entitled to reinstatement into service straight away. That was denied to him by the disciplinary authority. Of course, the reviewing authority, directed reinstatement two years thereafter, with the above riders, which are not permissible under the law. Neither there was any enquiry conducted nor such an enquiry is permissible under the law. For all the above reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service from 26-8- 2005 and the period from the date of removal i.e. 12-5-1998 till his reinstatement, i.e., 26-8-2005 shall be treated as continuous. Petitioner is not entitled for any back wages and for increments from 12-5-1998 till 27-3-2003; however, he is entitled for increments from 28-3-2003 till the date of his retirement i.e. 30-6-2007. Respondents are directed to calculate all the retiral beneﬁts treating the out of employment period i.e., from 12-5-1998 till 26-8-2005 ‘as on duty’ except for drawal of increments from 12-5-1998 to 27-3-2003 and pay the same to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 15-10-2008 prk