APHC010709812010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 24601 OF 2010 Between: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH, BRKR BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (ENQUIRY OFFICER), HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPT. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. K PADMAVATHI, W/O. LATE B.NARAYANAPPA ATTENDER R/O.1-65, RUDRAMPETA VILLAGE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. O/O. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ANANTAPUR. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PURANI HAVELI, HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SMT.Y. MAHALAKSHMI REP. MR.K RAMAMOHAN 2 The Court made the following ORDER: (per NJS,J) The State aggrieved by orders passed by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in OA No.2985 of 2006, dated 16.11.2009 filed the present Writ Petition. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the husband of 1st respondent, who was working as a Messenger in the office of Joint Director, Agriculture Department, died in harness on 08.07.1997. She made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds and as there were no vacancies, on the basis of enquiry report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anantapur, she was selected as Attender and allotted to the Office of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Anantapur. However, as no post of Attender was vacant, the District Collector vide proceedings dated 02.04.1998 requested the Regional Transport Officer, Anantapur to issue posting orders subject to relaxation of age and qualification by the Head of the Department. On 06.04.1998, the Regional Transport Officer, Anantapur / Petitioner No.3 herein issued proceedings stating that her appointment is purely temporary and posted as Attender in the Office of the Regional Transport Office, Anantapur. Subsequently, on the premise that the Transfer Certificate submitted by the respondent was bogus, the Transport Commissioner vide memo dated 02.02.1999 called for explanation from the respondent and to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her under Section 9 of the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 3) On 22.02.1999, the respondent submitted her explanation inter alia stating that the certificate was obtained by her husband and further there is no 3 need of educational qualification for low paid posts like Attenders in case of compassionate appointment and requested to drop further action in the matter. Dissatisfied with the explanation, the Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad, vide Memo dated 04.10.1999 requested the Regional Transport Officer, Anantapur to take disciplinary action against the respondent. The RTO, Hindupur was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. In turn he submitted a report dated 20.06.2000, holding that the Charge against the respondent was proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 10.07.2000 was issued to the respondent calling for her explanation as to why she should not be dismissed from the service. 4) Challenging the said Notice, the respondent filed O.A.No.4353 of 2000 and as no interim order was granted, she filed W.P.No.13741 of 2000. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide orders dated 28.07.2000 while extending time for submitting reply to the show cause notice dated 10.07.2000 directed the disciplinary authority to consider the objections. The Writ Petition was disposed of observing that in view of the said order, O.A.No.4353 of 2000 stands disposed of. The Division Bench also directed that pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings she shall be allowed to continue to discharge her services. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 05.09.2002, the RTO, Anantapur dismissed the respondent from service. Assailing the said proceedings, the respondent filed O.A.No.8440 of 2002 and the Tribunal by orders dated 23.03.2005 set aside the proceedings dated 05.09.2002. Notwithstanding the said order, the RTO, Anantapur- 4 Petitioner No.3 vide proceedings dated 09.05.2006 dismissed the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed O.A.No.2985 of 2006. The Tribunal vide orders dated 16.11.2009 allowed the O.A. holding that the said proceedings are without jurisdiction and issued directions to re-induct the applicant/respondent herein forthwith with all back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinduction. The State approached this Court against the said order of the Tribunal. 5) At the time of considering the present Writ Petition for admission, initially interim order of status quo was granted on 06.10.2010. Subsequently, the same was vacated vide order dated 19.12.2012 in W.V.M.P.No.6054 of 2010 and the respondent is continuing in service. 6) Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 7) The learned Government Pleader for Services-II made submissions inter alia to the effect that as the respondent submitted a bogus transfer certificate the proceedings dismissing her from service, that too after due enquiry are sustainable, but the learned Tribunal went wrong in setting aside the same. He submits that in the light of the observations made by the learned Tribunal while disposing of O.A.No.8440 of 2002 to the effect that the earlier order of dismissal dated 05.09.2002 was passed without considering the objections raised by the respondent, the RTO-Petitioner No.3 issued fresh proceedings of dismissal dated 09.05.2006 impugned before the Tribunal, after due consideration of the objections, that the learned Tribunal without appreciating the same in the correct perspective, set aside the proceedings. 5 He submits that in any event, as the issue of submitting bogus transfer certificate is very serious in nature, the learned Tribunal ought not to have set aside the same and seeks to allow the Writ Petition. 8) On the other hand, Smt. Y. Mahalakshmi, learned counsel for the respondent made submissions drawing attention of this Court to the relevant portions of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.8440 of 2002 dated 23.03.2005 and O.A.No.2985 of 2006, dated 16.11.2009. She submits that while disposing of O.A.No.8440 of 2002, the learned Tribunal has not granted any liberty to the authorities to pass orders afresh and in the absence of the same, the subsequent dismissal proceedings dated 09.05.2006 ought not to have been passed. She submits that the Tribunal after due consideration of the matter passed a detailed order in O.A.No.8440 of 2002 and the same had attained finality. Under the said circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner No.3, as rightly opined by the learned Tribunal, had no authority to pass fresh orders much less, with reference to the observations if any made in the order passed in O.A.No.8440 of 2002. She also submits that the respondent has been working as Attender for the last 27 years, but for the enhancement of age of superannuation by the State Government, the respondent would have retired by this time. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 9) Learned Government Pleader in reply submits that keeping in view the seriousness of the issue the Writ Petition may be disposed of with a liberty to the authorities to pass orders afresh after giving opportunity to the respondent. 6 10) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 11) At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that in the earlier round of litigation against the dismissal proceedings dated 05.09.2002 issued by the RTO, Anantapur-petitioner No.3, the Tribunal in O.A.No.8440 of 2002 passed a detailed order dated 23.03.2005. No doubt, the Tribunal made some observations to the effect that the objections raised with regard to the sustainability of the findings of the Inquiry Officer have not at all been taken into consideration. As per the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the subsequent dismissal proceedings dated 09.05.2006 impugned in O.A.No.2985 of 2006 are based on the said observations and it is a revised order. The said submission merits no appreciation. 12) The Tribunal allowed O.A.No.8440 of 2002 by recording categorical findings that the disciplinary authority has to independently exercise its power without any pressure from other quarters and that the said aspect is very much absent. While noting that the disciplinary authority acted in due obedience to the orders of the Head of the Department, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal proceedings dated 05.09.2002. No liberty was accorded to the authorities to pass orders afresh, much less revised orders. In the absence of any such liberty, the subsequent orders which are impugned in O.A.No.2985 of 2006 are without any authority. In fact, against the order passed in O.A.No.8440 of 2002, the authorities / petitioners have not filed any writ petition, let alone a review petition and allowed it to attain finality. In such 7 circumstances, the authorities cannot go beyond the orders passed in O.A.No.8440 of 2002. In the absence of an order of remand or liberty to the authorities, the Tribunal held that the order of dismissal is without jurisdiction. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal impugned in the present Writ Petition. Further, the respondent, who was appointed as an attender on compassionate grounds has been discharging the duties as such for the last 27 years and is at the verge of retirement. In view of the same, the submission of learned Government Pleader that fresh orders would be passed after giving opportunity to the respondent at this length of time would not only be inequitable, but also impermissible as the petitioners allowed the order of the Tribunal dated 23.03.2005 to attain finality. 13) In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 14) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Date:20.08.2025 Ssv 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 24601 OF 2010 Date:20.08.2025 Ssv