IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7895 of 2000 Between: D.B. Naik, S/o. Gane Naik, R/o. Ravulapalem, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, O/o. R.M. A.P.S.R.T.C. East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ravulapalem Depot, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District. 4 The Additional Licensing Authority, Hyderabad South Zone, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in keeping the petitioner under put off duty and disengagement vide Proc.No.P1/255(4)/98-RVPM, Ravulapalem dt.19-4-2000 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary, contrary to well established principles of law and as such set aside the same with a consequential direction to the 3rd Respondent herein to allot duties to the petitioner forthwith and to pay the arrears of salary from 19-12-98 to till reinstatement by regularising the services of the petitioner in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.M. Subhan Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. C. Prakash Reddy (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner, who was working as driver in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, on casual basis, questions the proceedings dated 19-04-2000, issued by the third respondent, vide Proc.No.P1/255(4)/98-RVPM, disengaging his services. 2. The petitioner was engaged in the service of the APSRTC as a casual driver on daily wage basis, basing on the driving licence produced by him. Subsequently, when it came to be noticed by the respondents that the driving licence produced by the petitioner at the time of entry into service was not genuine, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the Chief Inspector, Regional Manager’s Office, Rajahmundry was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry. The enquiry officer has addressed the licencing authority, Kurnool, so as to ascertain whether the driving licence produced by the petitioner is genuine. In response to the same, the licencing authority has communicated that the driving licence which the petitioner had submitted was not issued by their office. Based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in his report to the effect that the driving licence which the petitioner had submitted to the selection committee is bogus, the impugned proceedings are issued disengaging his services. 3. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APSRTC. 4. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that, subsequently the corporation has issued circular instructions wherein it is stated that the drivers who are engaged in the corporation and later dis-engaged, on the ground that the driving licences submitted by them are found to be not genuine, can be re-engaged in the corporation subject to producing valid driving licences. 5. It is to be seen that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner who was engaged in the service of the APSRTC as casual driver when it came to light that the driving licence submitted by him is not genuine. The enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry submitted his report recording a finding to the effect that the driving licence submitted by the petitioner to the selection committee at the time of selections is not genuine, based on the communication sent to him by the Licencing Authority, Kurnool that Driving Licence No.2563/89, which the petitioner claims to have been issued by the said office, is, in fact, not issued by their office. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that APSRTC has subsequently issued circular instructions referred above, the same is no ground to invalidate the impugned order by which the services of the petitioner were disengaged and the fact remains that the driving licence submitted by him is found bogus. Further, the impugned order was passed in the year 2000 and no interim orders are passed by this court suspending the impugned order. Hence I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order, wherein valid reasons are recorded, at this stage. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if any policy decision is taken by the respondents-APSRTC to re-engage the drivers, standing on the same footing as that of the petitioner herein, subject to producing valid driving licences, this order will not preclude them to extend such benefit to the petitioner as well. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. March 19, 2009 MRR