APHC010718872018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 34896/2018 Between: 1. JASTHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. JASTHI VENKATESHWARLU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, CONDUCTOR(E.727640), ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VINUKONDA BUS DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VINUKONDA BUS DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V S K RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC 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 that the action of the 1st Respondent in not ordering petitioners reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits, all consequential benefits with full back wages is bad, arbitrary, illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st Respondent Proc. No. AM(P)/19(01)/2015-PO-III dt.14-09-2015 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Conductor with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service- benefits including full back wages.” 2 2. Heard Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is working as a Conductor in Respondent- Corporation. During the course of his employment as a Conductor, on the given dated, the Inspecting Authorities found him that he has not issued ticket after collecting money from the passenger. Learned counsel would further submit that, on that charge, an enquiry has been conducted and the Petitioner was removed from service. The Petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was rejected. The review filed by the Petitioner was also rejected. Learned counsel would further submit that, in the mercy petition, the Managing Director of Respondent- Corporation has considered the case of the Petitioner and ordered for reinstatement as a fresh employment, without treating the suspension period as on duty. It is submitted that, the explanation of the individual would show that TIM was not properly working at the relevant time and that is why, he could not issue the ticket. Learned counsel would further submit that, there is no material on record to show that, though the TIM was working properly, the Petitioner has given false statement. It is submitted that even without monetary benefit for the relevant period, the suspension period may be considered as on duty treating the same as the first mistake of the Petitioner. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent – Corporation would submit that the scope of this Court to interfere in this type of matters is very limited. Petitioner has availed the appeal and review, but in the mercy petition, the Managing Director has considered the case of the Petitioner. It is submitted 3 that the Petitioner does not deserve any further concession before this Court. Petitioner instead of approaching the Industrial Tribunal, straight away filed the present writ petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, particularly the explanation of the Petitioner, would show that, the TIM was not properly working due to which the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner was found by the Inspecting Authority. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, nothing is on record about the functioning of the TIM at the relevant time. 5. In that view, imposing punishment against Petitioner by treating the suspension period as not on duty and reinstatement as a fresh employee, is disproportion to the alleged misconduct. In such circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 6. In the light of the aforementioned premises, the Writ Petition is partly allowed directing the Respondents to consider the suspension period of the Petitioner as on duty, without any monetary benefit by adjusting the same with any leave as per the availability and eligibility of the Petitioner. 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:21.04.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.34896 of 2018 Dt.21.04.2025 Dinesh