Case: APSRTC REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSHIRABAD &amp; ORS Vs. A.U.M.RAO &amp; ORS

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass4. In February, 2007, the respondent was appointed as a driver on contract, after undergoing a process of selection. He was working in the Waltair Depot in the district of Visakhapatnam with the appellant5. A disciplinary enquiry was held against the workman. Following the report of the Enquiry Officer, his services came to be terminated. After the dismissal of a departmental appeal, and in the course of a departmental review, the Regional Manager issued an order for the re-engagement of the respondent on contract on 3 February 2012. After his reengagement, the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for continuity of service together with consequential service benefits6. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that the matter was not res integra and was covered by an earlier judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 29 February 2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012. Though on behalf of the Corporation an effort was made to distinguish the earlier decision on the ground that in the present case a full-fledged enquiry has been held, this distinction did not find acceptance by the learned Single Judge. On the contrary, it was held that in the previous case, the learned Judge had found that the enquiry was not in keeping with the principles of natural justice. Moreover, in the view of the Single Judge, once the Corporation had granted a largesse in the form of a fresh employment, the workman should not be deprived of the benefit of continuity of service for the limited purpose of regularisation. Hence, in terms of the direction in the earlier decision, the petition was disposed of by directing the Corporation to extend the benefit of continuity of service to the workman from the date of termination until the date of his re-engagement except for the period when he was absent. This was, however, without any monetary benefit and was directed to count only for regularisation7. It is the above order of the learned Single Judge which was affirmed by the Division Bench in a Writ Appeal.

Court's reasoning:
In a departmental review, he was granted fresh appointment. Neither the termination nor the order granting him fresh appointment as a contract driver were challenged. As a matter of fact, it has also been submitted that in certain other cases, the workmen had taken recourse to proceedings before the Industrial Court but in the present case that was not done. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge relied on the earlier decision and issued directions, to govern the entire batch of cases. This direction was confirmed by the Division Bench without having regard to the facts of individual cases9. Since the order of the learned Single Judge in the present case, was exclusively based on the earlier decision dated 29 February 2012, a copy of that judgment has been placed on the record. The judgment of the Single Judge indicates that the earlier case also dealt with persons who were working as contract employees who were appointed after a regular selection. In some cases, termination orders were passed without an enquiry on allegations of misconduct while in other cases, an enquiry was conducted10. In the present case, the workman did not choose to assail either the termination of his services following the enquiry or the fresh appointment. All that was sought was that he should have the benefit of continuity of service from the date of the earlier termination until re-engagement11. Such a direction could not have been issued by the learned Single Judge without the termination being put into question. The grant of continuity was not sustainable for the simple reason that unless the order of termination and of the fresh appointment were challenged and adjudicated upon, seniority would necessarily have to count with effect from the date of the fresh appointment. As a matter of first principle, continuity can be granted when an order of termination is set aside, to ensure that there is no hiatus in service12. There is another reason why the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is common ground that the appellant has recruited personnel like the present respondent on contract after a regular process of selection. Eventually, the contract employees are to be regularised. Granting continuity of service to a person such as the respondent, who was found to have committed misconduct, would place him on the same footing as other contractual employees who have a record without blemish. Hence, once a fresh appointment was given to the respondent and neither the termination nor the fresh engagement was placed in issue, the grant of continuity of service by the High Court was manifestly misconceived13. We may also note that the earlier order of the learned Single Judge dated 29 February 2012 was in a batch of cases, where termination orders were issued without holding an enquiry in certain cases and after holding an enquiry in others, though in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was in that view of the matter that the direction contained in Clause 6 of the operative order provided that in cases where no enquiry was conducted, the Corporation would be at liberty to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, on the allegations of misconduct14. We find a considerable degree of merit in the submission of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation that in deciding the entire batch of cases by a common order, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench unfortunately lost sight of the facts of each individual case.