HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 3855 of 2007 Dated 26-10-2010 Between: S.Raghunath. ..... PETITIONER. And: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Depot, Kadapa District and others. ....RESPONDENTS. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 3855 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner, a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on two charges: Charge No.1: “For having had the prohibited material of liquor bottles in huge quantity (20XXX Rum 750Ml, bottles and 74 Hy-Wards Fine Whisky 180 Ml Bottles) with you at Bus-Station, Kavali to transport them to Cuddapah on 12-9-2000 illegally which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(XV) and (xxx) of APSRTC of Employees (Conduct) Regulations” Charge No.2: “For having been arrested by the Police of I-Town Police Station, Kavali on 12-9-2000 under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act and failed to inform the arrest fact to the Corporation Officials and tried to conceal the facts which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. (Conduct) Regulations.” The Enquiry Officer found against the petitioner on both charges and he was accordingly removed from service under proceedings dated 12-6-2001 passed by the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Depot, the 1st respondent. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kadapa, Kadapa District, the 2nd respondent, which was rejected by order dated 22-11-2001. He sought review of the same before the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kadapa, Kadapa District, the 3rd respondent. By order dated 8-8-2002, the 3rd respondent, being of the opinion that a lenient view of the matter was warranted, ordered the appointment of the petitioner as a driver Grade-II afresh with immediate effect. The consequence of the said order was that the petitioner was denied continuity of service and the consequential benefits accruing from his past service. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present writ petition. Sri S.D.Gowd, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was acquitted of the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, by the judgment dated 27-2-2004 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, in C.C.No.602 of 2002. This offence was relatable to charge No.1 in the disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in K.C.NARAYANA vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ([1]). That was a case involving a conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C. who was removed from service for misconduct. Similar to this case, the reviewing authority directed his appointment as a conductor afresh. The learned Judge, upon a conspectus of the facts of the case and the relevant law, observed: “I am unable to agree with the observations that the appellate authority, in exercise of the powers under Regulation 27, has the discretion to impose even a non-specified penalty provided it falls within the minimum and maximum penalty specified in the regulations. It is well settled that statutory authorities must exercise their powers strictly in accordance with the statute or the statutory rules and that exercise of power contrary thereto would be ultra vires and illegal. Exercise of discretion can only be in accordance with law and unbridled and unfettered discretion would fall foul of the equality clauses under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” This observation of the learned Judge was occasioned by the fact that the Regulations of the A.P.S.R.T.C. do not provide for appointment of an employee afresh as a measure of punishment. The learned Judge therefore set aside the direction of the reviewing authority appointing the petitioner therein as a conductor afresh and remanded the matter to the reviewing authority for consideration on the question of penalty. The case on hand being similar on facts, the direction of the reviewing authority that the petitioner should be appointed as a driver Grade-II afresh is in clear violation of the relevant regulations and is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of setting aside the order dated 8-8-2002 passed by the Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Kadapa, Kadapa District, the 3rd respondent. The matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner. Needless to state, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case on charges similar to Charge No.1, would necessarily have to be taken into account in the process of such consideration. This exercise shall be completed by the 3rd respondent expeditiously and in any event, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the petitioner is continuing in service pursuant to his appointment afresh under the earlier order of the reviewing authority, status quo as on today shall continue till final orders are passed by the 3rd respondent on the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Dated 26-10-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 3855 of 2007 Dated 26-10-2010 [1] 2007 (5) ALD 416