IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 8734 of 2001 Between: M. Basumia S/o M. Vahabag R/o 16/472/1, Ghouse Nagar Street, D-C. Road, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer O/o The Regional Manager, Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Depot Manager Proddatur Depot, Proddatur, Cuddapah 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 an order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent by its proceeding No.M1/19(79)/99-RM'C', dt. 28-6-2000 appointed as Mechanic afresh without giving his continuity of service and full back wages and all other attendant beneﬁts and is wholly illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to law and violative of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to give his continuity of service with full back wages and all other benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.B.MALLESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 28-06-2000 appointing the petitioner as Mechanic afresh, as arbitrary unjust and contrary to law and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to give his continuity of service with full back wages and all other benefits. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Mechanic under the respondent Corporation and he has put in about 21 years of service. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was issued a charge sheet dated 11-05-1999 with the following charges: “1. For your insuboridination and indecent bahaviour with Sri T.G.K. Reddy, leading Hand, Proddatur on 23.11.1999 duly consuming alcohol and abusing him while on duty, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(viii) r/w Cla(xii) of APSRTC employees (conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For your improper and ineﬀective maintenance of the vehicle ﬁxed to you, causing damage to the Gear Box body of the vehicle No.AP10Z 232 and also poor condition on the other ﬁxed vehicles, which amounts to gross negligence of duty APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having absented to your duties from 21-03-1999 to 22-03-1999 and on 04-04-1999 which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” After due enquiry, the Depot Manager, Proddatur, issued proceedings dated 05-10-1999 imposing penalty of removal from service on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Kadapa, who after considering the facts and circumstances of the case felt that the punishment of removal from service is not in proportionate with the oﬀence committed by the petitioner and it is a little bit excessive. As the petitioner given assurance that he will not give scope for irregularities in future, the appellate authority while taking lenient view modiﬁed the order of removal into that of appointment of the petitioner afresh. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior employee, who put in service of 21 years in the Corporation, has been removed from service on some untenable charges. The punishment of removal from service was found to be excessive and the appellate authority ought to have reinstated the petitioner into service instead of appointing afresh. It is also submitted that assuming for a moment that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, for which inﬂicting the punishment of removal from service is excessive, as rightly pointed out by the appellate authority and the appellate authority erroneously ordered for fresh appointment. The charges levelled against the petitioner are not so severe. Though the petitioner may be liable for punishment for the charges levelled against him but not such a major punishment as ordered by the 2nd respondent for fresh appointment, for which the petitioner will forgo the entire service put up by him in the Corporation. The learned counsel placed reliance in the case of B. BALARAJ v. THE MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL SPORTS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, HYDERABAD[1] and submitted that the petitioner may be given minor punishment as considered in the said case by the Division Bench of this Court or at least the petitioner may be provided with continuity of service for the purpose of retirement benefits without any back wages. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that no doubt the petitioner was put in service of 21 years in the respondent Corporation but this was not the ﬁrst occasion for the petitioner and he was faced charges on earlier occasions also and was subjected for several punishments. Therefore, the appellate authority has rightly taken the lenient view and converted the punishment of removal from service to that of fresh appointment. Therefore, the impugned order does not suﬀer from any legal inﬁrmity warranting interference of this Court. Admittedly the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Corporation and he was put in 21 years of service. The petitioner was issued charge sheet and after due enquiry he was removed from service, as the charges levelled against him were proved. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority taking lenient view issued orders appointing the petitioner afresh. From a perusal of the said judgment, which reliance is placed by the learned counsel, wherein the appellant apart from use of abusive language the fact of assault was also there. It was agreed that penalty of dismissal was excessive and hence reinstatement was directed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to service benefit, as he was put in 21 years of service. Accordingly, the respondent Corporation is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, reinstating the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without any back wages. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22-08-2008 LSK [1] 1996 (3) ALT 40 (D.B.)