APHC010136042003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6784/2003 Between: 1. S SANYASI RAO, S/O.S.V.JAGANATHA RAO EX CONDUCTOR,GRADE-I, A.P.S.R.T.C.,VIZIANAGARAM DEPOT, D.NO.8-20-10/6,BALJEENAGAR, VIZIANAGARAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, A.P.S.R.T.C. VIZIANAGARAM DEPOT, VIZIANAGARM DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, VIZIANAGARAM REGION. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A P S R T C, VIJAYAWADA & VIZIANAGARAM ZONES, M.G.BUS STATION, HYDERABAD. 4. VICE CHAIRMAM CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR A P S R T C, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.01/118(4)/2000-Vzm dt.18/01/2001 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and aganist the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP 8837 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No.01/118(4)/2000-Vzm dt.18/1/2001 of the 1st Respondent pending disposal of the W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6784/2003 ORDER: Impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 vide proceedings No.01/118(4)/2000-vzm dated 18.01.2001, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as conductor in respondent Corporation in the year 1986 and discharged his duties without any remarks. While so, suspension order was issued to the petitioner on 19.05.2000 on the ground that on 05.05.2000, while he was conducting a bus No.AP 35 T 2646 on route of Vizianagaram+Neelakantapuram/Visakhapatnam service, he misbehaved with a lady passenger and tried to outrage her modesty due to which the she jumped out of the said running bus and sustained grievous injuries. To the said suspension order, petitioner submitted explanation on 15.06.2000. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and a report dated 22.09.2000 was also submitted basing on which, respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 15.11.2000, petitioner has also submitted explanation to the same. Later, respondent No.1, on 18.01.2001, issued proceedings vide proceedings No.01/118(4)/2000-Vzm, removing the petitioner from service. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner were also rejected confirming the orders of respondent No.1. He further submitted that charges were framed against the petitioner and punishment was imposed. The primary, appellate and revisional authorities have not dealt with the case in right perspective. In fact, there is no evidence on record to punish the petitioner and remove him from service. If the said order of removal is allowed to subsist, it affects the rights of the petitioner, and in fact, the petitioner has not behaved indecently with any of the lady passengers, particularly on the date of the incident. In fact, the criminal case initiated against the petitioner was acquitted as the petitioner was found not guilty for the offence under section 354 read with 34 IPC. It is well settled that when the charges in the departmental proceedings and criminal case are same, acquittal of the delinquent employee in criminal case, bar the disciplinary authority from taking disciplinary action against the employee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri Tarlada Vinod Kumar, learned standing Counsel, while justifying the orders passed by the authorities, duly contended that the petitioner, who is a conductor has misbehaved with a lady passenger who jumped out of the bus to protect herself from the petitioner and in these circumstances, show cause notice has been issued by the respondent authority and after conducting enquiry, the order of removal has been passed, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. The charges are grave in nature, and the punishment of removal is proportionate to the charges. The petitioner has not raised or urged any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court and petition is liable to be dismissed, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. The petitioner has been removed from service on the ground of misbehaviour towards a lady passenger and tried to outrage her modesty while she was travelling the service bus bearing number AP 30 T 2646 on 05.05.2000, the petitioner conducted the bus during that time. Later, an order of suspension dated 19.05.2000 was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his explanation, accordingly, domestic enquiry was conducted and report was also submitted. Basing on the enquiry report, show cause notice of removal has been issued to the petitioner to which he submitted explanation duly contending that the findings of the enquiry officer are not correct and requested not to proceed with punishment. Respondent No.1, upon taking the material into consideration and the evidence available on record, passed impugned orders removing the petitioner from service vide his proceeding dated 18.01.2001. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2- Regional Manager, on 14.03.2001. Respondent No.2 rejected the same under his proceedings dated 31.01.2002. Challenging the same, petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.3-Executive Director, Vijayawada and Vizianagaram zones and the same was also rejected on 22.06.2002. Assailing the same, the present petition is filed. A perusal of the material available on record and the submissions made by the respective Counsel would clearly and clinchingly establishes the case against the petitioner and the authorities have rightly dealt with the case and passed orders removing the petitioner from service as the charges against him are grave in nature and the punishment imposed is proportional to the charges. The petitioner has not raised valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 11th September, 2025 RKS