APHC010558272018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26694/2018 Between: 1. B.KRISHNAIAH, S/O B.LAKSHMAIAH, 65 YEARS, E.62080, ASST.DEPOT CLERK, H.NO.27-164/C, RAMNAGAR COLONY, CHITTOOR-517001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION,VIAYAWADA. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C. NELLORE ZONE, NELLORE. 3. THE DY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. CHITTOOR. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A.G. SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not reviewing the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings consequent on acquittal of the petitioner in Criminal Case on the very same charge by judgment dated 29.02.2016 in C.C.No. 822 of 2010 on the file of IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chitt000r is unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the APSRTC Employees (C.C and A) Regulations, 1967 and Circular No. PD- 2 61/2003 dated 30.07.2003, in violation of Principles of natural justice, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to set aside removal order dated 11.02.2010 and recovery order dated 23.03.2011 and to pay all the terminal benefits by treating that petitioner as retired from service on 11.02.2010.” 2. Heard Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner worked as Assistant Depot Clerk. The Petitioner faced departmental enquiry for the alleged misappropriation of student bus passes worth Rs.13,42,000/-. Learned counsel would further submit that, as one of the wrong doers, the Petitioner faced enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal and the same was confirmed in appeal. It is submitted that the Petitioner preferred the present writ petition on the ground that the criminal case lodged against the Petitioner was ended in acquittal. Thereafter, inspite of the representations made by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2, no orders so far have been passed. Learned counsel would finally submit that, a direction may be given to consider the representation of the Petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the request of the Petitioner is based on the regulations of the Corporation, which is not helpful to his case. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the material on record, since the criminal case against the Petitioner was ended in acquittal, 3 as the Petitioner suffered the punishment of removal, he made representation to Respondent No.2. However, no orders have been passed by the Respondents so far. 6. In the light of the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision over the representation of the Petitioner, dated 03.04.2017, according to governing Ruels and Law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:10.04.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.26694 of 2018 Dt.10.04.2025 Dinesh