IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5967 OF 2014 T O o m ct </> & Between: P.Sriramulu, S/o Tavitayya, aged 49 years Driver, E.no. 775058 R/o Sathiwada Village and Post Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District 532405 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 500 020 Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director 2. Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., North East Coast Region Srikakulam 3. The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Srikakulam I Depot, Srikakulam ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the proceedings No. No.02/118(1)/13-SKLM-1 dated 21.12.2013 dismissing the petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently set aside the same; (ii) and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and back wages. |.A. NO: 1 OF 2014tWPMP. NO: 7425 OF 2014^ 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 f pleased to suspend the proceedings No. No.02/118(1 )/13-SKLM-1 dated 21.12.2013. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER r *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION No.5967 OF 2014 %30.01.2025 #P.Sriramulu s/o. Tavitayya, aged: 49 years, Driver, E.No.775058 r/o.Sathiwada Village & Post, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner AND $1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director ....Respondents. And two others. ICounsel for the petitioner '^Counsel for the respondents : Sri S.M. Subhan : Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada Ld. Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. <Gist; >Head Note: ? Cases referred: r (T -2- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No.5967 OF 2014 %30.01.2025 # P.Sriramulu s/o. Tavitayya, aged: 49 years, Driver, E.No.775058, r/o.Sathiwada Village & Post, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner AND $1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director And two others. ....Respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED; 30.01.2025. SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Copy of the Judgment? Yes/No -3- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 APHC010310332014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No:5967 OF 2014 Between: P.Sriramulu ...Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director And two others. ...Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.M.Subhan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada Ld. Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 21.12.2013 whereby the respondents have dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The petitioner is seeking a consequential 4^ -4- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 direction to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and back wages. 2. The petitioner joined the respondent corporation as a casual driver in the month of March 1996. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 01.08.1997. The petitioner intended to contest for gram panchayat election scheduled to be held on 23.07.2013 and accordingly, filed his nomination on 10.07.2013. The petitioner also submitted his representation to the respondent corporation to permit him to contest for the post of Sarpanch of Sattiwada constituency on 14.07.2013. 3. The petitioner unsuccessfully contested the election and reported to duty on 28.07.2013. However the petitioner was not taken back into service and was not assigned any duties. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 29.10.2013. The suspension order indicates a preliminary enquiry was conducted and that the preliminary enquiry report confirmed the issue of the petitioner contesting in elections. As the petitioner did not report to duty on 9‘^ and lO'*^ of July and from 12‘^ of July to 31.07.2013 the petitioner produced sick certificate from R.I.M.S., Srikakulam. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation on 14.07.2013 seeking permission from the respondent to contest the election. There was no response from the respondents and the petitioner presumed that the \ -5- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 respondents have expressed deemed consent and proceeded to contest the election. The charge sheet dated 29.07.2013 was issued to the petitioner by framing the charge of misconduct of contesting in election without tendering resignation. It is stated that regulation 9 r/w. regulation 8 (1) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (C.C. & A) Regulations 1967 were violated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Circular which is relied upon by the respondent was neither published nor circulated to the employees. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated employees filed W.P. Nos.10533 of 2008 and 21366 of 2008 wherein the petitioners therein also contested the elections for the post of Sarpanch without obtaining prior permission from the respondent corporation. This Court, vide common judgment dt.07.10.2013, allowed the writ petitions. 6. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that any employee of the respondent corporation is free to contest in any election subject to the condition that he/she tenders resignation to the post held by such employee. It is submitted that all employees of the respondent corporation are governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and Regulation 23 forbids an employee from contesting any election without tendering resignation. V -6- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 7. It is also submitted that regulations 8 and 9 of C.C.A Rules are also violated by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has submitted a sick certificate during the period of his absence from duty claiming that he was unwell. The petitioner submitted a fictitious sick certificate to substantiate his absence from duty, while the petitionerwas busy contesting election. 8. It is also submitted that the respondents have taken the appropriate and necessary action against the petitioner for having committed the misconduct. It is submitted that the punishment of dismissal is imposed after a detailed enquiry and on admission of the petitioner. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the record. 10. The question which falls for consideration is whether the punishment of removal imposed on an employee working in the respondent corporation for contesting in a grampanchayat election without tendering resignation is justified. 11. The election to the post of Sarpanch is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Section 19 of the Panchayat Raj Act deals with disqualification of candidates. The Section 19 (f) of the Panchayat Raj Act relied on by the respondents is of relevance to the facts of this case. -7- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 19. Disqualiifcation of Candidates - (1) A person who has been convicted by a Criminal Court,- (a) for an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955); or (b) for an offence involving moral delinquency: shall be disqualified for election as a Member for a period of five years from the date of conviction or where he is sentenced to imprisonment while undergoing sentence and after a period of five years from the date of expiration thereof (2) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as a member if on the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations for election, or on the date of nomination under sub-section (2) of section 16 he is (a) of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (b) a deaf-mute; (c) an applicant to be adjudicated an insolvent or an undischarged insolvent; (d) interested in a subsisting contract made with, or any work being done for, the gram panchayat, *[Mandal Praja Parishad], *[Zilla Praja Parishad] or any State or Central Government: Provided that a person shall not be deemed to have any interest in such contract or work by reason only of his having a share or interest in. (i) a company as a mere shareholder but not as a director; (ii) any lease, sale or purchase of immovable property or any agreement for the same; or (Hi) any agreement for the loan of money or any security for the payment of money only; or (Iv) any newspaper in which any advertisement relating to the affairs of the gram panchayat is inserted; Explanation:- For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that where a contract is fully performed it shall not be deemed to be subsisting merely on the ground that the gram panchayat, *[Mandal Praja Parishad], *[Zilla Praja Parishad], the State or Central Government has not performed its part of the contractual obligations; ^[(dd) already a member of a Nagar Panchayat or a Municipality constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (Act VI of 1965) or a member of a Municipal Corporation constituted under any law relating to Municipal Corporations for the time being in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh;] -8- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 {e) employed as paid legal practitioner on behalf of the gram panchayat or as legal practitioner against the gram panchayat; (f) employed as a ^[XXXX], manager or secretary of any Company or Corporation (other than a co-operative society) in which not less than twenty-five per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; (g) an honorary Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) with jurisdiction over any part of the village; (h) already a member of the gram panchayat whose term of office will not expire before his fresh election can take effect or has already been elected as a member of the gram panchayat whose term of office has not yet commenced; (i) in arrears of any dues including the sums surcharged otherwise than in a fiduciary capacity, to the gram panchayat upto and inclusive of the previous year, in respect of which a bill or notice has been duly served upon him and the time, if any, specified therein for payment has expired: Provided that where any person has paid such dues into the Government treasury or into a bank approved by the Government to the credit of the gram panchayat fund and obtained a challan or receipt therefor in token of such payment, he shall not be disqualified to become a member of the gram panchayat on and from the date of such payment. (3) A person having more than two children shall be disqualified for election or for continuing as member: Provided that the birth within one year from the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 hereinafter in this clause referred to as the date of such commencement, of an additional child shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of this clause: Provided further that a person having more than two children (excluding the child if any born within one year from the date of such commencement) shall not be disqualified under this clause for so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase: Provided also that the Government may direct that the disqualification in this section shall not apply in respect of a person for reasons to be recorded in writing. ” -9- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 12. Regulation 23 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963 relied on by the respondent corporation, reads as under: '23. Taking part in Politics and Elections: (1) No employee shall, be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organization in respect of which there is slightest reason to think that the organization has political aspect and takes part in Politics, nor shall he participate in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity. (2) If any question arises whether any movement or activity falls within the scope of this regulation, the decision of the Managing Director thereon shall be final. (3) No employee shall canvass or otherwise interfere or use his influence in connection with, or take part in, an election to any legislature or local authority or a trade union of which he is not a member of office-bearer: Provided that- (a) An employee qualified to vote at such election may exercise his right to vote, but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted; and (b) An employee shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this regulation by reason only that he assist in the conduct of an election in the due performance of a duty imposed on him by or under any law for the time being in force. Explanation: The display by an employee on his person, vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his influence in connection with an election within the meaning of this clause.” 13. The petitioner was working as a driver. As such his role in the respondent corporation is admittedly not that of a Manager or Secretary which would draw the disqualification clause under Section 19 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The clarification issued by the State Election Commission permitting the petitioners therein to contest -10- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 elections referred to by the learned Judge in the judgment passed in W.P. No. 10531 and 21336 of 2008 has obviously referred to Section 19 (f) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 14. The conduct regulations are equally ambiguous. Regulation 23 (3) referred to by the respondents in the counter is inapplicable to the facts The ambiguity, if any, with regard to the petitioner of this case. deserving the punishment of dismissal from service for contesting the election of Sarpanch, the respondent authority ought to have referred the issue to the Managing Director in terms of Regulation 23(2). The clarification issued by the State Election Commission that employees of A.P.S.R.T.C. were entitled to contest the elections was referred to by the learned single judge while allowing the W.P.Nos.10531 and 21366 of 2008. 15. The petitioners in the above referred writ petitions also contested unsuccessfully as is the case of the petitioner. Things would have been different had the petitioner been elected as a Sarpanch. 16. The respondents have only acted on the preliminary report submitted by the Assistant Manager by relying upon the letter of M.P.D.O., Gara. It is not in dispute that the petitioner made a representation on 14.07.2013 seeking permission for contesting in the gram panchayat election and the said representation was forwarded to the higher authorities for accord of permission. Elections were conducted on [“ -11- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 23.07.2013. The respondents had ample time, either to reject the permission or inform the petitioner about his requirement of submitting resignation for contesting in the election. The respondents for the reasons better known to them, have kept silent and issued a charge sheet dated 29.10.2013 after a period of three months after the petitioner unsuccessfully contested the election. 17. The impugned proceedings deserves to be set aside as the respondents have not communicated the Circular which is relied upon by the respondents forbidding the employees of the respondent corporation from contesting any elections without prior sanction or tendering resignation. The respondents have exhibited unexplainable lethargy in addressing the representation of the petitioner dated 14.07.2013. The fate of the petitioner would have been in better shape had the respondents issued necessary instructions or disposed off the representation of the petitioner before the date of election, have been the choice of the petitioner either to contest in the election refrain from contesting in election depending on the response of the respondents to the representation of the petitioner dated 14.07.2013. 18. The impugned proceedings are highly arbitrary, irrational and are hereby set aside. The petitioner was illogically dismissed from service. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service and be assigned a suitable work. The petitioner shall also be paid 50% of the back wages It would or -12- W.P. No.5967 of 2014 The from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. petitioner during which he was not in service shall be treated as ‘on duty’ for notional purposes only. 19. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed in part. No costs. 20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N (For His Lordship’s kind perusal) To, 1. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 500 020. 2. The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., North East Coast Region Srikakulam. 3. The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Srikakulam I Depot, Srikakulam 4. One CC to Sri S M Subhan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, (SC for APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 6. 9 L.R. Copies. ' 7. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affiars, New Delhi. 8. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District. 9. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER OF I 2 FEB 2C2'5 | Current Section ^5 WP.No.5967 of 2014 WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED IN PART, WITHOUT COSTS