THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Friday, 25th day of January,2008 W.P.No.4671 of 2006 Between:- E. Ramu … Petitioner and The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.4671 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.02/118(16)/2005-RCTY, dated 4-3-2006 passed by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a Driver after subjecting him to a regular selection process in the year 1993. Subsequently, his services were regularized in the post of Driver with effect from 1-8- 1994. According to the petitioner, he obtained heavy vehicles driving licence from the Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa in the year 1991. After serving for 13 years, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 31-5-2005 alleging that his driving licence was not a genuine one and asking him to submit his explanation. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet. However, after conducting enquiry, he was removed from service with effect from 4-3-2006. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The facts are not in dispute. Even the impugned Proceedings do not reveal anything much as to the facts, other than what is stated by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner obtained initially driving licence bearing No.3363/85 from the Licensing Authority, Thumkur, Karnataka State. Thereafter, on the basis of the said licence, he had obtained heavy motor vehicles driving licence from the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa. It appears, after 13 years, some enquiry was made and it was found that the driving licence obtained by the petitioner from Licensing Authority, Thumkur was found to be a non-genuine one. Simultaneously, verification was also caused as to the heavy motor vehicles driving licence held by the petitioner. However, the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa has reported that the licence issued in favour of the petitioner was a genuine one. Even in the counter filed by the 4th respondent, it is asserted that the licence issued in favour of the petitioner, i.e., heavy vehicles driving licence is a genuine one. Thus, it appears, only on the basis of some information received from the Licensing Authority at Thumkur, the respondent-Corporation has found that the petitioner had no genuine driving licence. In fact, petitioner was appointed in the year 1993. The heavy vehicles driving licence was obtained from Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa in the year 1987 i.e. 6 years prior to the date of his appointment and much prior to that i.e. in the year 1985 he had obtained a licence from the Licensing Authority, Thumkur. Nowhere it is stated that the licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa was based on the licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Thumkur. Generally, initially, a light motor vehicle driving licence was issued and three years thereafter, a heavy motor vehicle driving licence is issued. Be that as it may, petitioner worked as a driver in the respondent- Corporation with an unblemish record for more than 13 years and the 3rd respondent has removed him from service on the ground that the certificate obtained by him from the Licensing Authority, Thumkur was not a genuine one. This seems to be arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the 4th respondent has filed a counter asserting that the licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa is a genuine one and the petitioner has worked for more than 13 years thereafter as a driver of the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation bus unblemishly. Firstly, there is no basis to come to the conclusion that the heavy vehicles driving licence held by the petitioner is a non-genuine one and secondly, the respondent-Corporation has not considered the fact that the petitioner had worked as a driver in the Corporation for more than 13 years without any blemish. For all the above reasons, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, with all consequential benefits, except back wages. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 25-01-2008 prk