APHC010958412018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 46282 of 2018 Between: G. Damodar Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Chairman Cum Presiding Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO 2. GP FOR LABOUR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “... to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records in I.D.No.105 of 2015 on the file of Respondent No.1-Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu and quash the same in so far denying the back wages attendant benefits and imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and consequently, set aside the same by directing the respondent-Corporation to grant back wages attendant benefits and add two increments to the pay of the petitioner..” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as a contract Driver in the year 2006 and later his service was regularised in 2010. While he was working as such, on 28.08.2014 at about 12.55 p.m. in the route Madanapalli to Kadapa on the bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 0416, a check was 2 conducted by the authorities and found that the Petitioner consumed alcohol and it was confirmed when tested with breath analyzer at Kadapa bus station and it is a serious mis-conduct as per Reg.28(xxxi) of the APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Further, a preliminary enquiry was conducted. Being not satisfied with the explanation of the Petitioner and on receipt of the report of the preliminary enquiry authorities, a charge sheet was issued and charge was framed against the Petitioner. In the enquiry, the charge was proved against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner followed by his explanation, he was removed from service vide Order dated 05.02.2015. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected. Questioning the same, Petitioner filed ID No.105 of 2015 and the learned Presiding Officer of Respondent No.1 by order dated 17.03.2017 allowed the petition with the following observation: “In the result, Petition is allowed in part by setting aside the orders of the Respondent dt.5.2.2015 with modification by imposing punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect not entitled for any back-wages from the date of removal till the date of order but with continuity of service without effecting his seniority and confirmed the orders regarding suspension period. The Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. Accordingly, Award passed.” Impugning the said Order, the Petitioner preferred the Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri B.V.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for Respondent No.1, 3 Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-APSRTC. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the allegations levelled in the charge sheet are false and baseless. Further, while the petitioner was performing duty, he was checked with breath analyser at Madanapalli and found that he was free from alcohol and permitted him to perform duty. Further, the enquiry officer without considering the material on record, gave the report without giving valid reasons. Basing on the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service which is illegal and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Learned counsel would submit that the appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected and that he raised ID before the respondent No.1. Learned Presiding Officer modified the order of removal and directed the respondent authorities to reinstate him into service. Further, the learned Presiding Officer did not appreciate the facts of the case and the material on record and erred in observing the gravity of the offence and that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that during pendency of this Writ Petition, Petitioner died on 03.05.2024 and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 5 vide Order dated 11.03.2025 in IA No.1 of 2024. Finally prays to allow the Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-APSRTC while vehemently opposing the Writ Petition would submit that the charges are proved against the individual in the enquiry as well as in the appeal. 4 Further, the petitioner was found in intoxication condition while performing duty and that the punishment of removal is justified. Learned Presiding Officer/respondent No.1 exercised the discretionary powers and reinstated the petitioner into service by reducing two annual grade increments and there are no grounds to interfere in the ID Award and prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material on record as rightly put by learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No2/APSRTC, charge framed against the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in intoxication condition while discharging duty is proved in the enquiry and that he drove the vehicle in a drunken condition. It is not the case that the respondent/APSRTC authorities have not followed the procedure while conducting enquiry as per the law. The punishment which was awarded to the Petitioner is not disproportionate to the alleged act of misconduct. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere in the impugned Award. 7. For the aforementioned premises, the Writ Petition deserves for dismissal. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 46282 of 2018 21.03.2025 Mjl /*