APHC010163862021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9365/2021 Between: 1. N. RAVI KUMAR, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM, E.114071, DESIGN. EX.DY.SUPDT(P), AGED 50 YEARS, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BUS BHAVAN, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STAND, BHASKARARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA, R/O. D.NO.34-3-6, LIBRARY STREET, KASTURIBAIPET, VIJAYAWADA-520010. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Pandit Nehru Bus Stand, Bhaskararaopet, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENT 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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents issued the impugned orders of removal from the service vide proceedings No.P3/114(1)/2018- DY.CME(CandB) dated 03.01.2019 issued by the 4th respondent and consequently rejection of appeal vide proceedings No.' PA/19(1)/2019-CME (CandB) dated 05.03.2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent and rejection of review petition vide proceedings No. PA/19(01)/2019-ED-E, dated 18.06.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and 2 contrary to service rules and violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of principles of natural justice and setaside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into services as a Deputy Superintendent (Personal) with all consequential benefits, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service as a Deputy Superintendent (Personal) by suspending the impugned order of removal from the service vide proceedings No.P3/114(1)/2018-DY.CME(CandB) dated 03.01.2019 issued by the 4th respondent and consequently rejection of appeal vide proceedings No. PA/19(1)/2019-CME (CandB) dated 05.03.2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent and rejection of review petition vide proceedings No. PA/19(01)/2019-ED-E, dated 18.06.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of main Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO 3 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief; “…to issue an appropriate writ or any other order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents issued the impugned order of removal from the service vide proceedings No.P3/114(1)/2018-DY.CMC(C&B) dated 03.01.2019 issued by the 4th respondent and consequently rejection of appeal vide proceedings No.PA/19(01)/2019- ED-E, dated 18.06.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to service rules and violation of Articles 14,16,21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of Principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into services as a Depurty Superintendent (Personal) with all consequential benefits, and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was removed from the service vide Proceedings No.P3/114(1)/2018-Dy.CME(C&B) dated 03.01.2019 issued by the 4th respondent as he misbehaved with Smt. B. Girija Rani who is co- employee in the office. Misbehaving is a misconduct under one of the conditions that enumerated under Regulation IX of APSRTC Regulations. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner was 4 rejected vide proceedings No.PA/19(1)/2019-CME (C&B) dated 05.03.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and the review petition was also rejected vide proceedings No.PA/19(01)/2019-ED-E, dated 18.06.2019, issued by the 3rd respondent. Assailing the order of removal passed by the 4th respondent, the present writ petition filed. 4. Smt. B. Girija Rani a co-employee filed a complaint against the petitioner, leading the Police register an FIR and filing of a charge sheet in C.C.No.4636 of 2018 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 448,506,509 IPC. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition because Smt. B. Girija Rani was not gainfully employed, the respondent authorities ought not have been imitated and conducted disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner prays for an order of reinstatement with full back wages, arguing that his removal was based solely on the aforementioned criminal proceedings which was settled before the Lok Adalat on 11.10.2021. 5. The scope of interference by the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters involving in disciplinary proceedings is well settled in a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court will not sit in appeal over the findings of the Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority on facts, unless it shocked the judicial conscience and neither case fell in this category. 5 Reliance can placed on the judgments in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others vs P.C. Kakkar1 and V. Ramana vs A.P.S.R.T.C. and others2, wherein it is stated: "The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 6. This Court has perused the material available on record. The respondents have followed the procedure as stipulated under Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1991, and the APSRTC Regulations, 1967, and this Court has not seen any flaw in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings or the imposition of punishment. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court, this Court cannot interfere in the disciplinary in a light manner. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1 2003 (4) SCC 364 2 (2005) 7 SCC 338 6 the Union of India and others Vs. P.Gunasekaran3 regarding interference by the High Court in disciplinary proceedings, particularly in service matters. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re- appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into a re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether; (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; 3 (2015) SCC 610 7 (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 8. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Interference is warranted only where there is a violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, or where the authorities have reached a conclusion based on the considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case. 9. The conclusion of the disciplinary authorities can be interfered with only if it is arbitrary, or if the disciplinary authorities has erroneously failed to admit admissible and material evidence or admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the findings, or where the findings are based on no evidence. On perusal of the record, the petitioner has not made out any of the above grounds. Therefore, on merits, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. However, the complaint was settled before the Lok Adalat. 8 10. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s removal stemmed from a complaint filed by Smt. B. Girija Rani, and the said criminal case has been compromised and settled before the Lok Adalat, hence, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in terms of the compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority, and on such representation being submitted, the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.07.2026 RMD 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 9365 OF 2021 Date: 22-07-2026 RMD