4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY/THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUAR TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33264 OF 2012 Between: R.M. Naik, S/o. Seva Naik, aged about 50 years, Occ: Superintendent (T) E.110568, APSRTC. R/o Nugivedu, Krishna District ...PETITIONER AND 1. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-26. 2. The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada Zone, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 3. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the Respondents No.1 and 2 and issue an appropriate writ. Order or Direction, particularly one in the, nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring that the punishment of reversion inflicted by the 2^'^ respondent in proceedings No.PA/675(01)/11/EDA/JA, dt. 28-04-2011 and confirmed by the 1®* respondent in proceedings No. P1/19(11)/2011-PO.IV, dated 13-02-2012 as illegal, unjust, contrary, to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, in violation of principles of natural justice and the said punishment is shockingly disproportionate and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential benefits. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 42335 OF 2012} Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order of reversion issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.PA/675(01)/11/EDA/JA, dt.28-04-2011 and confirmed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No. P1/19(11)/2011- PO.IV, dated 13-02-2012, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI V. PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI S. VENKATESWARLU, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following; ORDER APHC010258462012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No: 33264 OF 2012 Between; ...Petitioner R.M. Naik AND A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director And two others Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri V.Padmanabha Rao Counsel for the Respondents; Sri S.Venkateswarlu The Court made the following order; 1. This writ petition is fiied chaiienging the proceedings of the 2 respondent, dated 28.04.2011, and the same was confirmed by ...Respondents nd the respondent dated 13.02.2012. claims that while he was working as Assistant 2. The petitioner Manager (Traffic), he was issued a charge sheet dated 21.07.2010 Chief Traffic Manager of A.P.S.R.T.C., Gudur. framed against him regarding false by the Deputy Three charges were certification about the working condition of the audio and video -2- W.P. No.33264 of 2012 systems and the provision of an attender for four buses. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.07.2010. It is stated that the leaders of the employees' union bore a grudge against him and lodged a false complaint alleging that the audio and video systems in the four super luxury vehicles were not functioning and that attender had not been assigned to those buses. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager (Traffic) and he has verified the statements brought to him by the contractor for payment, which contained the signatures of the service bus drivers and that the charges levelled against him are beyond a level of scope of his work. However, the 3'^^ respondent conducted an enquiry against the petitioner and imposed the punishment of removal from vide proceedings dated 06.01.2011. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, vide order dated 28.04.2011, has set aside the order of removal and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner into service. However, the petitioner was reverted to the post of superintendent for a period of two years. The period during which the petitioner was not in service, i.e., 06.01.2011 to 28.04.2011, was treated as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes, including an service -3- W.P. No.33264 of 2012 for leave and increment purposes. The petitioner preferred review before the revisional authority, but the same was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority could not have punished the petitioner as ‘not on duty without any notice or calling for a fresh enquiry. 4. The respondents filed their detailed counter stating that the petitioner had certified bills showing that he had been negligent in performing duty. It is further submitted in the counter that the petitioner did not verify before certifying the bills, and as such, the punishment of removal was imposed on him. However, the appellate authority has considered the case of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds and directed reinstatement. It is submitted that the petitioner was reverted for a period of two years and thereafter was restored to the post of Assistant Manager and that the petitioner has now attained the age of superannuation. 5. By the impugned proceedings dated 28.04.2011, the appellate authority recorded a finding that the petitioner had certified the bills raised by the contractor and that he had failed to verify the records while certifying the bills, which would exhibit gross negligence of duty. The appellate authority has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner, and based on the preliminary enquiry. -4- W.P. No.33264 of 2012 ^ the petitioner was reinstated into service on humanitarian grounds. However, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Superintendent (traffic) for two years, which was also the period during which was not in service to be treated as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leaves and increments. he 6. Considering the submission that the petitioner has attained age of superannuation, the ends of justice would be impugned proceedings are modified to the clause (b) of the proceedings 28.04.2011. the met if the extent of deleting The rest of the proceedings dated 28.04.2011 stands upheld. The respondents shall compute the amounts and the monetary benefit due payable to the petitioner and disburse the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall Stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’bie the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on this Monday, Twenty Fourth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. 7 Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To 1. The Managing Director, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada. 2. The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada Zone, Vijayawada Krishna Dist. 3. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur, Guntur District. 4. One CC to Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, Advocate [OPUO 5. One CC to Sri S. Venkateswarlu, SC for APSRTC[OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb / HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER * 2 5 MAR 2025 n ^ . Current Section . ^ WP.No.33264 of 2012 eo PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS