IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 20258 of 2000 Between: S. Venkataiah S/o. Bhadraiah R/o H.No. 2.4.587, Ramnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, (I/C. Dy. General Manager Operations), A.P.S.R.T.C., Warangal. 3 The Depot Manager, Hanamkonda Depot Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a suitable Writ or proceedings one in more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering my representation for continuity service as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents to consider my case for continuity service. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.RAJU Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 20258 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner to give the beneﬁt of continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 25.11.1971. While he was conducting the bus on 16th August 1972 on the route from Nizamabad to Nanded, a check was exercised by the inspecting oﬃcials at stage No.25/24 and they have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on 24th August 1972. 3. In the disciplinary proceedings, two charges were levelled against the petitioner to the eﬀect that he has failed to collect fares and issue tickets to 48 passengers, who were found travelling from Nanded (Bus stage No.25) to Dhonegone Cross roads. Further charge was also framed to the eﬀect that the petitioner has failed to follow the rule of “Issue and Start”. 4. After conducting necessary inquiry, the inquiry oﬃcer has found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him, and based on the report of the inquiry oﬃcer, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings No.T2/76 (422), dated 22.01.1972. Though the petitioner has availed the remedy of departmental appeal, the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, review appeal was ﬁled before the Deputy General Manager (Operations). Even the review authority had concurred with the ﬁndings arrived at by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, and recorded a ﬁnding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, but however, taking into account the past record of the petitioner, the review authority has ordered for appointment of the petitioner as a fresh Booking Clerk. It is categorically recorded in the order that the petitioner is not entitled to past service. 5. Though the writ petition is of the year 2000, no counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled. But however, even as per the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has not questioned the order passed by the appellate authority, and also the ﬁndings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings, based on the valid inquiry conducted. The review authority has also conﬁrmed the ﬁndings recorded by both the disciplinary and the appellate authorities, but however, taking into account the past service of the petitioner, the review authority has ordered for appointment of the petitioner as a fresh Booking Clerk. 6. In view of the concurrent ﬁndings recorded on appreciation of evidence on record with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner, which have become ﬁnal, the petitioner cannot simply seek directions for extending the beneﬁt of continuity of service. Asmuch as no procedural irregularity is alleged in the inquiry, and in the absence of questioning the orders passed by the departmental authorities, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th October 2008 ajr