APHC010412882024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 21139 OF 2024 Between: 1. D ANKINEEDU, S/o Parsisudha Rao, aged-49, Occ RTC Constable E 272149, Presently working at Tenali Bus depot, APSRTC Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The A P S R T C, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Vijayawada. 3. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director cum Revisional Authority, APSRTC, Vijayawada. 4. The Director V and S, RTC House, Vijayawada. 5. The Asst Director V and S, APSRTC, RTC house, Vijayawada. ...Respondents 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 topleased to issue a Writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings vide IR1/19(11)2023-PO-III dated 18-3-2024 in sofaras denying the gratuity increments, leave, seniority and reinstating me w.e.f 12-4-2018 as illegal, highhanded, arbitrary, against Law and violation of the order 2 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P No. 47627 of 2018 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement w.e.f 30-3-2017 with all consequential benefits and back wages and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to suspend the proceedings vide IR1/19(11)2023-PO-III dated 18-3- 2024 issued by the 3rd respondent to the extent of denial of past service and other benefits pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the respondents herein to file the counter affidavit in W.P. No. 21139 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondents: P VENKATA RAO SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 21139 of 2024 O R D E R 1) The Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings issued by 3rd Respondent vide IR1/19(11)2023-PO-III, dated 18.03.2024, whereby Petitioner was denied the benefits of gratuity, increments, leave and seniority, and his reinstatement was ordered with effect from 12.04.2018. Petitioner assails the said proceedings as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, besides being in violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.47627 of 2018. 2) The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an anonymous complaint alleging that Petitioner had obtained a contract for bus cleaning in a benami name, a preliminary inquiry was conducted. Based on the said preliminary inquiry, a charge memo was issued to Petitioner on 25.11.2016, to which he submitted a detailed explanation on 12.12.2016. Thereafter, a regular inquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report on 09.02.2017. Pursuant thereto, a show-cause notice was issued to Petitioner, to which he submitted his reply. Thereafter, 5th Respondent, vide Order dated 30.03.2017, imposed the penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner preferred an Appeal, which was dismissed on 25.10.2017. 4 3) Petitioner preferred a Revision before 3rd Respondent, namely, the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, who, vide Order dated 26.03.2018, modified the penalty of removal from service and directed reinstatement of Petitioner as a fresh candidate. Aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner filed W.P.No.47627 of 2018. This Court, upon consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the entire record, held that the punishment imposed on Petitioner was based on the preliminary inquiry report and the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is only to ascertain whether disciplinary proceedings are warranted or not and not to form the basis for imposition of punishment. This Court further held that no punishment could be imposed by placing reliance upon the preliminary inquiry report and, accordingly, held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on Petitioner, based upon the preliminary enquiry, was vitiated. 4) This Court, in the aforesaid judgment, placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K. David Wilson v. Secretary to Government, Law Department (Legislative Affairs and Justice), Hyderabad1 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. T.J. Paul2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside the Order dated 26.03.2018, as 1 2013 SCC OnLine AP 1151 2 AIR 1999 SC 1994 5 well as the consequential Order dated 09.04.2018 passed by 1st Respondent. The matter was remitted to 3rd Respondent with a direction to examine the relevant records and determine appropriate punishment, if any, to be imposed on Petitioner, strictly in accordance with Regulations, 1967, within a period of three months. As Petitioner had been continuing in service pursuant to the order of the Reviewing Authority directing his appointment afresh as a Constable, this Court directed maintenance of status quo until final orders were passed by 3rd Respondent in respect of the proposed action. 5) While so, 3rd Respondent passed a further Order dated 20.05.2023, reiterating the punishment imposed earlier and imposing the very same penalty, without reference to any fresh material or any findings recorded in the final enquiry report, as required pursuant to the directions of this Court. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner initiated contempt proceedings against Respondents. In the said proceedings, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held the Contemnor guilty of contempt, observing that Respondent had failed to comply with and adhere to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition. 6) While the contempt proceedings were pending, Respondents issued a further Order dated 18.03.2024, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. The said Order was also alleged to be contrary to 6 the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition. However, the contempt proceedings ultimately culminated in the Contemnor being held guilty and punished for non-compliance with the directions of this Court. 7) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner placed reliance upon the Contempt Order dated 20.06.2025, wherein this Court specifically recorded that the order impugned in the present Writ Petition was passed on the basis of the very same enquiry report, without there being any fresh material or any further findings recorded pursuant to the regular enquiry. It was further observed therein that, once the proceedings initiated on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report had been held to be vitiated, the same could not thereafter form the basis for passing the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court had attained finality, as the Respondents had not preferred any appeal either against the order passed in the Writ Petition or against the order passed in the Contempt Case. 8) In view of the aforesaid findings, 3rd Respondent could not have relied upon the very same material and proceeded to pass the impugned order in the present Writ Petition. The validity of such action had already been considered by this Court in the aforesaid contempt 7 proceedings, and the findings recorded therein having attained finality, 3rd Respondent was bound to act in conformity with the same. 9) In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned Order is set aside. 3rd Respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the findings and directions recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.47627 of 2018, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Thereafter, the consequential benefits, as admissible to Petitioner pursuant to the orders so passed, shall be extended to him within a further period of two (02) months. 10) Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 22.09.2026 SM. 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION No. 21139 of 2024 Date 22.09.2026 SM