IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2448 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Abdul Khader, E.No. 52012, Ex. Suptd. (Mat.) Flat No. 404, Heena Residency, Red Hills, Hyderabad-500 004. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerbad, Hyderabad. 2 The APSRTC, Rep by its Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Ranga Reddy Region, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ranga Reddy Region, MGBS, Hyderabad. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad-1 Depot, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner fro resuming duty vide Proc.No. P1/255(1)/08, dt. 24-10-2008 inpursuance of the subsequent proceedings No. P1/255(5)/02, dt. 11-7-2002 as high handed and arbitrary action, without jurisdiction, contrary to APSRTC Regulations and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, and consequently direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner with all service benefits forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2448 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk w.e.f. 10-1-1975 in the Respondent Corporation. He was promoted as Stores Keeper and again as Stores Supervisor in the year 1982. He applied for leave for a period of one year in the year 1993 and sought for further extension. Proceedings were initiated for his unauthorized absence. After regular enquiry, he came to be removed from service for his unauthorized absence by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Ranga Reddy District-2nd Respondent. He filed an appeal before the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Ranga Reddy. His appeal came to be allowed in part modifying the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent. The relevant portion of the order passed in the appeal reads as hereunder:- “I have gone through the entire evidences available on records, circumstances involved in the case, and the enquiry Officer’s proceedings which are absolutely in order as per the besides Sri Mohd. Abdul Khader, E.No. 52012, who was given reasonable opportunity to defend the case during the course of enquiry, as such, I have finally come to a conclusion and hereby order that the removal orders issued by Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer (RR) be set aside, besides modifying the proposed punishment to the extent of the gravity of misconduct committed by Ex. Suptd.( Mat.). I therefore, hereby order that: a) Sri Mohd. Abdul Khader, E.No 52012, Ex. Supt. (Mat.) be reinstated into service) b) On reinstatement, he shall undergo punishment of reversion in rank from Supt.(Mat. ) to Dy. Suptd (Mat.) for a period of two years which shall have its cumulative effective upon the future increments and his pay shall be fixed in appropriate stage i.e. at the stage of had he been continued as Dy. Supdt. ( Mat.). c) After a period two years, he shall again be reverted back to his former post of Supdt. ( Mat.) The period shall be taken into account from the date when Sri Mohd. Abdul Khader, E.No. 52012, reports for duty on reinstatement at the Unit where he is posted. d) Adopting the principle of no work no pay, the period right from the date of absenteeism i.e.23-5-94 to ill he reports for duty as Dy. Supt. (Mat.) shall be treated as NOT ON DUTY for the purpose of service, increments and gratuity. e) He shall report to ED ( Hyd. & KRMR Zones) for receiving further posting orders within seven days from the date of receipt of this proceedings leathing which the orders stands cancelled. However, as per APSRTC Employees ( CC & A ) Regulations, 1967, an appeal against the above orders lies with Executive Director ( Hyd. & KRMR Zones) which shall be preferred within two months from the date of receipt of this proceedings” 2. Assailing the order passed by the 2nd Respondent the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing for APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondent Corporation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner reported for duty, but he was not permitted to join stating that the time allowed by the appellate authority has been expired. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal and therefore, invoking jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case is misconceived. 7. I have gone through the order passed by the Regional Manager, APSRTC. The order is explicit that in case of the petitioner not reporting duty within seven days, the reinstatement shall stand cancelled. However, the order passed by the appellate authority is an appealable one under APSRTC Employees (CC & A) Regulations, 1967. Therefore, the petitioner has to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under APSRTC Employees ( CC & A) Regulations, 1967 within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Reserving the said liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 11th February, 2009 NOTE: C.C. in three days. B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2448 OF 2009 11th February, 2009.