IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23463 of 2006 Between: Chippala Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Late Chippada Laxman Rao, R/o. Salur (Vill. & Mandal), Kota Street, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vijayawada & Vizianagaram Zones, M.G. Bus Stand, Hyderabad 500 012. 3 The Regional Manager, Vizianagaram Region, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order direction or writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting continuity of service back wages and protection of last drawn pay in the post of driver Grade-II as wholly, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the circular No. PD 43/1986, dt. 16-4-1986 and consequently direct the respondents to protect the last drawn pay, in the post of driver grade-II duly granting continuity of service and back wages to the petitioner and pass such further other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under these circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.23463 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. An accident occurred on 25-07-2002 while he was driving a bus on the route from Duggeru to Salur. A charge sheet was issued to him and departmental enquiry was conducted. Simultaneously, the petitioner was tried for oﬀence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.157 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Salur. 2. The departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner ended up with an order of removal passed by the Depot Manager, Salur, dated 16-04-2003. The appeal and the review ﬁled before the Divisional Manager and the Regional Manager respectively were rejected. 3. The petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.157 of 2002 vide judgment of the trial court dated 05-02-2004. Thereupon, he ﬁled a representation before the Executive Director-second respondent herein claiming the beneﬁt under Circular No. PD-43/1986, dated 16-04-1986. The second respondent in turn passed an order dated 16-08-2004 directing the appointment of the petitioner afresh, as Driver, Grade-II in the time scale. He states that the circular provides for reinstatement with full back wages and the second respondent did not extend such relief. This writ petition is ﬁled against the proceedings of the second respondent, to the extent that they did not give relief of back wages and other beneﬁts to the petitioner. 4. Heard Sri V.Vishwanatham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sr i C.Appaiah Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 5. Disciplinary proceedings on the one hand, and the proceedings before the Criminal Court on the other hand, were initiated against the petitioner, alleging his negligence while driving the bus leading to the death of a pedestrian. While the departmental proceedings ended up with the order of removal against the petitioner, the criminal case ended in acquittal. The timing of the termination of these proceedings assumes significance. By the time the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court, not only he was removed from the service by the Depot Manager, but also the appeal and the review ﬁled by him before the Divisional Manager and the Regional Manager respectively, were rejected. 6. A perusal of the circular dated 16-04-1986 discloses that whenever a driver of the corporation is acquitted of the oﬀence under Section 304-A IPC on merits and not on technical grounds, he can make representation to the appellate or review authority, who, in turn, shall examine the matter and extend the relief of reinstatement and back wages. In the instant case, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent who was neither the appellate authority nor review authority. All the same the representation was entertained and relief was granted. The petitioner could have complained of any contravention, if only he made representation to the authorities mentioned in the circular. When there was a basic fallacy in his availing remedy under the circular and all the same got some relief, he cannot complain of illegality in the whole matter. Even at this stage, the petitioner can seek reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, if he feels aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent. 7. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. It is open to seek the relief of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, if it is otherwise compatible. No order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 28-07-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}