APHC010671452012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO:28417 OF 2012 Between: M.A.Rao …Petitioner AND The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Managing Director-cum- Vice Chairman, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad and four others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Challari Nageswara Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 28.02.2012, which confirmed the proceedings dated 25.11.2011. The proceedings, dated 15.02.2011 and the proceedings 11.10.2010 are also under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner is also seeking a -2- W.P. No.28417 of 2012 direction for his reinstatement into service together with all service benefits. 2. The petitioner was working as a driver at Paderu depot. In the pleadings, it is stated that, on 11.04.2010, he was found intoxicated while on duty. The intoxication was detected when a breath analyser test was conducted on the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority issued the orders of removal dated 11.10.2010. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority rejected the appeal. The revision filed before the revisional authority was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents corporation submits that on 11.04.2010 while the bus was plying from Paderu to Araku, there was a mechanical breakdown of the bus and the petitioner, along with another employee, left the bus and came back in an intoxicated condition. A breath analyser test was conducted on the petitioner and an explanation was sought for. The enquiry officer recorded statements of the witnesses and the order of removal from service was -3- W.P. No.28417 of 2012 passed. The explanation submitted by the petitioner that he consumed B-22 syrup and that consuming alcohol was far from the truth. Recording the detailed statements of the witnesses, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner ought to have approached the competent Labour court and adduced the relevant evidence to substantiate his statement of defence. Having failed to approach the Labour Court, the petitioner cannot challenge the disciplinary proceedings before this Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. 6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N BV