THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P. NO. 3188 OF 2007 Date: 03-02-2011 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhadrachalam Depot, Khammam District. .. Petitioner And B.V.S. Narayana and 2 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P. NO. 3188 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner in this revision is the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 2. The point that arises for determination in this revision is whether the Court of Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam has got jurisdiction to entertain O.S.No.246 of 1999 and pass the order, which it has passed? 3. The point arises in the following circumstances: The plaintiff B.V.S.Narayana in the above O.S.No.246 of 1999 was a conductor in Bhadrachalam Depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “APSRTC”) in Khammam District. It is seen from the record that for committing certain alleged ticket irregularities, the Depot Manager of Bhadrachalam Depot of APSRTC served a charge sheet dated 20.01.1999 on the plaintiff and also by an order passed on the same date i.e. 20.01.1999, the said Depot Manager placed the plaintiff under suspension, pending completion of disciplinary proceedings. Questioning both the above charge sheet and the suspension order, the plaintiff/conductor filed O.S.No.246 of 1999. It is seen that an objection relating to the jurisdiction of the Special Assistant Agent to entertain the suit has been raised by the APSRTC, but it appears that, it was overruled. The Special Assistant Agent after considering the matter on merits passed an order dated 27.12.2005 holding that the charge sheet and the suspension order served and passed by the Depot Manager were illegal and granted a declaration to that effect. Questioning the said order of the Special Assistant Agent, the APSRTC has come up with this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC argued that the conductor of APSRTC is admittedly a workman falling under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the Civil Court or the present Special Assistant Agent have no jurisdiction to entertain a matter pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings against such a conductor and consequently the order passed by the Special Assistant Agent should be set aside. 5. On the other hand Sri K.Vinaya Kumar the learned counsel appearing for the conductor i.e. the 1st respondent herein, relied upon a judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme Court given in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa[1], argued that though the matter may be covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, still a suit can be maintained if the impugned orders, pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings, are shown to have been passed in gross violation of the Rules and the procedure prescribed. He further relied upon a decision of this Court given in Todendula Venkata Krishnaiah v. Uppu Gangaiah[2] and contended that even assuming for a moment that the Special Assistant Agent has acted without jurisdiction the present revision is not maintainable and the APSRTC should have filed a regular appeal and consequently, on this ground the revision must fail. I shall examine both the contentions now. 6. It may be noted that, it is well settled now that where a matter is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or any Authority in a scheduled area exercising the powers of a Civil Court must be held to be impliedly barred. However, in the decision first relied upon by Sri K.Vinaya Kumar i.e. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation’s case, it has been held that where no enquiry at all has been conducted in imposing a penalty under the relevant Rules, a suit will be maintainable. Their Lordships, however, in para 35 of the judgment referred to supra, observed as under: “however, we may hasten to add if a suit is filed alleging violation of a right by a workman and a corresponding obligation on the part of the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Certified Standing Orders, a civil suit may not lie”. This observation itself suggests that their Lordships of our Hon’ble Supreme Court even in the above case reiterated the proposition that where a matter is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a civil suit or any proceeding before an Authority exercising the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in a scheduled area will not lie. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the conductor in question is a workman and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him by the Depot Manager concerned, who is the Competent Authority. However, whether the charges levelled against the conductor in the disciplinary proceedings can be sustained or not, will have to be decided only after holding an enquiry and it is not for this Court to pronounce anything one way or the other in respect of those charges. Thus, whether the charges are true or not, the proper authority to go into them is the concerned Tribunal or Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after completion of domestic enquiry and depends upon the result thereof and not a Civil Court or the present authority which passed the impugned order. Thus, it follows that the Special Assistant Agent has passed the impugned order or judgment by exercising the jurisdiction, which is not vested in him or her. Accordingly, the first contention of Sri K.Vinaya Kumar is rejected. 7. Then coming to the question, whether this revision is maintainable or whether the APSRTC should file a regular appeal; Sri K.Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, strenuously pointed out that an appeal lies and not this revision. It is true in Todendula Venkata Krishnaiah’s case, second referred to supra, this Court held that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised lightly and various situations in which jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised by this Court are stated in para 22 of the said judgment. It should be noted that the very second clause in the said paragraph would show that Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised by a High Court where the Tribunal or Court below has assumed excessive jurisdiction in passing an order. This clause is a complete answer to the second objection of Sri K.Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and negatives his contention and, on the other hand, correspondingly it supports the contention of the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC. It appears that this jurisdiction aspect was not properly taken to the notice of the Special Assistant Agent and had it been taken, I am sure that, the said authority would not have entertained the said suit. 8. It, therefore, follows for the aforesaid reasons, that this revision is maintainable and the order under challenge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the impugned order/judgment are set aside. 9. It is brought to my notice by Sri K.Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, that the conductor in question has been reinstated into service pending revision. If the APSRTC authorities feel that his continuation in service may not enable him to meddle with enquiry or witnesses, he may be continued in service, pending conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings or they may take such action as is open to them under law. This revision is, accordingly, allowed. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 3rd February, 2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P. NO. 3188 OF 2007 Date: 03-02-2011 MR [1] 2009 (3) ALD 104 (SC) [2] 2003 (4) ALD 366