IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4356 of 2009 Between: Suggu Sankar Reddy @ S.S. Reddy S/o. S. Purushottam Reddy R/o. C/o. Siddaiah, Weavers Colony, Near Zoo Park, Pudipatla (V) & (Post), Tirupati - Rural, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager APSRTC. Srikalahasti Depot, Srikalahasti (Post), Chittoor District. 2 The Divisional Manager APSRTC. Tirupati Division, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 The Regional Manager APSRTC. Chittoor Region, Tirupati, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA PATURI Counsel for the Respondents:SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 01.12.2001 passed by respondent No.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By order, dated 01.12.2001, the petitioner, who was a Driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings. Appeal and review filed by the petitioner resulted in their dismissal. Subsequently, the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner also resulted in its dismissal. In the criminal case registered against the petitioner, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- by the trial Court. However, Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2007 filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was allowed by the appellate Court by judgment, dated 16.06.2008. According to the petitioner, he was held not guilty. Thereafter, on 16.07.2008, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 by way of appeal seeking review of order, dated 07.05.2002, whereby the latter confirmed the petitioner’s removal. By letter, dated 17.09.2008, respondent No.3 rejected the said appeal. Heard Sri Venkata Narayana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Corporation issued Circular No.48/95-OPD-I, dated 21.07.1995, wherein it is inter alia provided as under: “L. REMOVED BASING ON THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AND ACQUITTED IN APPELLATE COURT: If a driver is removed based on the findings of the departmental enquiry and also convicted in the First Court and in the event of his acquittal in the appellate Court, he will have a right of appeal on removal order. The appeal should be submitted one month from the date of the pronouncement of judgment to the authority which has disposed of previous appeal of the employee. The appeal should accompanied with a certified copy of the judgment of the Court. The appellate authority will review appeal in the light of the judgment and as per guidelines indicated in pre-paras. In case reinstatement in these cases, when acquittal is Appellate Court, no back wages shall be paid, period of absence shall however be treated due.” The contents of letter, dated 17.09.2008 show that respondent No.3 is completely oblivious of the above-mentioned Circular and the rejection of petitioner’s request for re-consideration is totally without application of mind. Whether the petitioner’s request for reinstatement following his acquittal by the criminal Court deserves to be accepted or not is required to be considered by respondent No.3 by applying Circular No.48/95- OPD-I, dated 21.07.1995. Such a consideration is totally absent in the approach of respondent No.3, while rejecting the petitioner’s request. Therefore, letter, dated 17.09.2008 is quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to re-consider the request of the petitioner in the light of his acquittal by the criminal Court and Circular No.48/95-OPD-I, dated 21.07.1995, and pass a reasoned order, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.5715 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th APRIL, 2009. kvni