4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 10981 of 2011 Between: A.V.R.Reddy …PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager APSRTC ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 10981 of 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.01/118(7)/1998-TDP, dated 29.03.2001 of the respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by adding deferred increments and to pay arrears. 2. The petitioner is working as a Driver in APSRTC since 1999. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 27.07.2000, with the following charges. “Charge No.1: For having received regular mamools from the Private Operators on the route Pulivendula during the month January, 1999 and February, 1999 and also you have operated the APSRTC Buses behind the private Buses intentionally thereby helping the private operators to carry overload of passengers with the result the legitimate earnings ought to be received by APSRTC Buses of Tadipatri Depot are looted by private operators and Corporation has sustained losses, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(iii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Charge No.2: For having operated the APSRTC Buses behind the private Buses during the month of January, 1999 and February, 1999 whereby you have not achieved target for earning 08 times for 11 duties in January, 1999 and 06 times of 07 duties in February, 1999 with malafide intention to help the Private operators resulting the legitimate earnings by APSRTC on said route was not realized by Tadipatri Depot which clearly reveals that you have accepted the mamools from the private operators and you have given scope to carry over-load to the private operators, which constitutes misconduct under Reg-28 (xvii) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct Regulations, 1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation. Having dissatisfied with the same, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. After submission of the report by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent ordered that the basic pay of the petitioner be reduced by two incremental stages for a period of two years, which have the effect on his future increments. 3. A common enquiry was conducted against the petitioner herein and other Drivers on similar charges. Vide common order, dated 23.06.2010 in W.P.Nos.4596 and 4604 of 2005, this Court allowed the writ petitions setting aside the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as confirmed by the appellate authority, directing the respondents therein to pay the arrears of salary and refix the pay of the petitioners therein, within a period of six weeks from the date of order. Since the findings in the common enquiry are set aside, the same will apply to the other employees in the enquiry. The case of the petitioner also stands on the same footing and is covered by the said judgment. 4. Further, it is well settled that when an employee who has been dismissed or removed is reinstated as a result of Court order, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence including the period of removal or dismissal. 5. Following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings No.01/118(7)/1998-TDP, dated 29.03.2001. Consequently the respondent is directed to pay the arrears of salary after refixing the pay of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 20, 2011 YVL