IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9526 of 2008 Between: KBS Swamy, S/o. K.V.N. Murthy, E.No. 76243, APSRTC, Thorrur Depot, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 The Executive Director (GH & KR), APSRTC, J.B.S., Picket, Secunderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal Region, Warangal. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Thorrur Depot, Warangal District. .....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 call for the records from the 3rd respondent and issue an appropriate Writ order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the order of reversion passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No. P1/475(1)/2007-RM:WL, dated 21-0-2008, reverting the petitioner from Assistant Engineer (Mech.) to the post of Superintendent (Mech.) for a period of two years, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9526 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the A.P.S.R.T.C. When he was working in the office of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Warangal, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, for the alleged misbehaviour on 29.09.2007. Initially, he was placed under suspension, and thereafter, reinstated. The enquiry officer submitted a report on 03.10.2007, holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. After affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 21.04.2008, reverting him to the post of Superintendent (Mechanical) for a period of two years. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation made against the petitioner is about certain utterances in a heated discussion between the petitioner and his immediate superior and that the punishment imposed against his client is totally uncalled for. Smt. P.Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further alleged that the petitioner has resorted to acts of indiscipline and no interference is warranted at this stage. An incident, that is said to have taken place on 29.09.2007, has given raise to issuance of a charge sheet as well as suspension of the petitioner. The order of suspension was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.22311 of 2007 and accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated. The disciplinary proceedings were continued and in the domestic enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner were held proved. Based on the same, the 3rd respondent reverted the petitioner to a lower post for a period of two years. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal to the Executive Director. The basis for the petitioner to approach this Court at this stage is that the appellate authority is not vested the power to grant interim orders. Whatever may be the approach of this Court and appellate authorities towards the orders, removing or dismissing an employee from service, some what different approach is needed, as regards the orders of reversion. In such cases, the employees would be continued in service and if the order is given effect to, even while the appeal is pending, much of the damage is already caused. More than the reduction in the emoluments, it is the position held by an employee that assumes significance. Even this cannot be stated as a universal principle and much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The allegation against the petitioner is that he uttered two sentences against his superior, which are said to be derogatory. The disciplinary authority thought it fit to inflict the punishment of reversion. The question as to whether the punishment inflicted against the petitioner can be sustained in law or on facts, needs to be considered by the appellate authority. Had it been a case, where the petitioner is working at the same place, where the incident is said to have taken place, it would not have been advisable to stay the reversion. The record discloses that the petitioner has since been transferred to a different place and has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. No prejudice would be caused to anyone, in case the impugned order is stayed, till the disposal of the appeal. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that till the disposal of the appeal presented by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, the impugned order shall remain stayed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 28.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9526 of 2008 Date: 28.04.2008 JSU