IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 18495 of 2002 Between: Yousuf Ali S/o.Jaffar Ali R/o.H.No.17-1-175/101-A Nehrunagar Colony Rein Bazar,Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Director [Vigilence & Security] A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Vigilance and Security Officer, Hyderabad zone, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the punishment of removal from service imposed by the second respondents vide proceedings No.SB/498[5]/2001SO[HZ] dated 28.2.2002 as confirmed by the appellate authority vide proceedings No.SD1/19[21]/2002-PO-II dated 22-06-2002 as illegal, arbitrary and conseqeutnly quash the same with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 18495 of 2002 ORDER: 1 The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition assailing the punishment of removal from service imposed by the second respondent vide proceedings No.SB/498[5]/2001SO[HZ] dated 28.2.2002 as confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. the first respondent herein vide proceedings No.SD1/19[21]/2002-PO-II dated 22.06.2002. 2 The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Security Guard on 12.02.1974 and thereafter promoted to the post of Security Head Guard in October 1989 and on promotion he was posted at Body Building Unit of the Corporation at Miyapur, Hyderabad. While so, on the allegation that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in connivance with one V.Venkateshwarlu, who was working as Junior Assistant in Materials Department in getting the weighment of consignment of alluminium sheets outside on 14.03.2001 a preliminary enquiry was conducted and basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was suspended from services with effect from 10.04.2001 and a charge memo was also issued, which reads as under: “For having connived with Sri V.Venkateshwarlu, E.86627, Jr. Asst(M) of BBBW, Miyapur and Sri Likuvinder Singh Driver of lorry AHT 7505 of M/s Transport Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad for obtaining false weighment certification from weigh bridge operator of M/s. Asian Weigh Bridge, I.D.A., Bollaram of consignment of Aluminium Sheets received to BBW on 14.3.2001 from M/s. Hindalco Industries, Renukoot, U.P. to cheat and cause huge financial loss to the Corporation and concealed the facts which is a serious mis-conduct in terms of Reg.No.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963” 3 A detailed explanation was offered, but, however, the enquiry officer held that the said charge is proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the said enquiry report, after following due procedure, removed the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 28.02.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. first respondent herein, but the same was dismissed on 22.06.2002, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the respondents. 5 Along with the present petitioner the said Venkateswarlu, Junior Assistant working in the materials department of the respondent corporation was also charge sheeted for the very same allegations and he was also removed from service. As against the said order of removal, the said Venkateswarlu raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal ordered his reinstatement with 25% of the back wages. As against the said award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the APSRTC approached this court and filed W.P.No.14585 of 2004 and the same was disposed of today setting aside the direction in so far as payment of 25% of back wages is concerned, but upholding the direction given in respect of reinstatement. Therefore, the case of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition can also be viewed in the same perspective since the alleged theft/attempt to commit theft by third party was brought to the notice of the respondent management on the evening of 14.03.2001 itself. From the said conduct it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of the charge and he is hand in glove with the said Venkateswarlu and the truck driver Likuvinder Singh. No doubt, there are lapses on the part of the petitioner, for which, in my considered view, the major punishment like removal from service is unwarranted. Accordingly the order of removal imposed by the second respondent vide proceedings No.SB/498[5]/2001SO[HZ] dated 28.2.2002 as confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. the first respondent herein vide proceedings No.SD1/19[21]/2002-PO-II dated 22.06.2002 are hereby set aside. 6. It is further brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner retired from service in January 2007 on his attaining the age of superannuation. Hence this Writ Petition is allowed and the said period of removal with effect from 28.2.2002 to January 2007 is set aside and the same shall be treated as though he is in service for the purpose of retirement benefits only, but it does not mean that he is entitled to back wages. 7 The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. --------------------- 18.06.2009 kvsn