IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 6275 of 2000 Between: K.Srinivas S/o.Venkata Narayana R/o.Nehru Colony, Bhimavaram West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Regional Manager Visakhapatnam Region Visakhapatnam. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Dy.C.T.M. (Urban) Visakhpatnam. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Depot Manager Maddilapalem City Depot Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. .....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 and order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent herein in disengaging the petitioner from service vide Proc.No.P1/145(7)/92-MD, dt.30-6-1993 which was confirmed by R1 and R2 vide Proc.No.PA/19/(69)/95-VSP(u), dt.16-8-97 and Proc.No.Steno/19(51)/97-RM Visakhapatnam dt.16-8-97 and proc.No.Steno/19(51)/97-RM Visakhapatnam dt.20-05-1999 respectively, while admitting that the qualification required for the post of Driver is read and Writ simple sentences and disengaging the petitioner from services on the allegation that I submitted non-genuine recruitment for the post of Driver after completion of nearly 2 years of service as illegal, unjust, unwarranted, contrary to Reg.19(2,b) of APSRTC Service Regulations, against to the principles of natural justice and as such set aside the same with a consequential direction to the Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.Y.VIVEKANANDA SWAMY The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in disengaging the services of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 30.06.1993 as confirmed by R1 and R2 vide proceedings dated 16.8.1997 and proceedings dated 20.05.1999 respectively as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint him as Driver in APSRTC. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in the year 1990 having been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee. While that being so, the educational certificate produced by the petitioner was sent for verification. The authority who verified the same, has opined that the certificate was not issued by the said school as mentioned in the certificate. Therefore, the petitioner was proceeded with departmentally and he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charge: For having produced bogus educational certificate bearing No.815 and on the strength of this bogus educational certificate you have secured driver’s post on casual basis and got the date of birth fixed as per the certificate by cheating the Corporation. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the same, the disciplinary authority found that the charge was proved. Therefore, his services were dis-engaged by an order dated 30.06.1993. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy CTM (Urban) Visakhapatnam. However, the same was dismissed on 16.8.1997. Further, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam. The Regional Manager, after detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, passed an order dated 20.5.1999 rejecting the same and confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner asked his father to obtain certificate from the school where he studied. Instead of obtaining the certificate from the school where the petitioner studied, his father brought a certificate from a different school. But, this fact was not verified by the petitioner properly. According to the petitioner, he studied in a different school and even otherwise, the school certificate has no relevance for the purpose of appointment to the post of Driver, since the qualification required is holding a heavy vehicle licence and knowledge of “read and write”. 5th Class was not a must. Simply because the petitioner has produced the certificate issued by a different school by mistake, that does not mean that he could have been dismissed from service. Therefore, the impugned order of removal as confirmed by R1 and R2 is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the petitioner has produced fake certificate wherein his date of birth is noted as 13.6.1963 and on the basis of the same, he was employed in 1990. Therefore, the very employment obtained by the petitioner is by a fraudulent method. Hence, no lesser punishment can be imposed than that of disengagement which has been imposed by the disciplinary authority. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. The petitioner himself has accepted that when he asked his father to obtain school certificate where he studied, his father obtained the certificate from a different school. In fact, he studied up to sixth class in Bhimavaram and he has produced a Xerox copy of the certificate issued by the said school to show that he is a bona fide student and the certificate which was produced by mistake could not have been taken into consideration seriously, in view of the fact that there is no necessity of any basic educational qualification for appointment to the post of Driver except to have the knowledge of read and write. Further, the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered in two writ petitions being WP Nos.19892of 1999 and WP No.4921 of 2000 which were disposed of directing to approach the appellate authority. The petitioners herein is similarly placed with that of the petitioners therein, but their cases were considered by the respondents for appointment into the service of RTC, whereas the petitioner was disengaged. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh application ventilating his grievances along with the orders passed in the above writ petitions before the Regional Manager, West Godavari, Eluru within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents shall entertain the same and pass appropriate orders and consider the case of the petitioner for fresh appointment as Driver. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________ 27-02-2008 rkk .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Regional Manager Visakhapatnam Region Visakhapatnam. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Dy.C.T.M. (Urban) Visakhpatnam. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Depot Manager Maddilapalem City Depot Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. 4.2CD copies