P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 07.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2026 Date of uploading : 25.08.2026 APHC010080192023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 4052 OF 2023 Between: 1. C OBAIAH, S/o Late Obanna Aged 58 years, Occ Driver, Ferror Colony, B.K. Samudram Mandal Anantapuramu District ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep by its Prl Secretary, Transport Department, Velagapudi Guntur Distrcit. 2. The Labour Court, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District.. 3. The Regional Magaer, APSRTC, Anantapuramu 4. The Dy Chief Trafic Manager, APSRTIC, Regional Office, Anantapuramu 5. The Depot Managaer, APSRTC, Anantapuramu ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: K SREEDHAR MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondents:ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) P a g e | 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 4052 OF 2023 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, to declare the impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent passed in ID No. 24 of 2015 dt. 09.05.2017 and consequential orders of the government issued in GO Ms. No. 466 dt. 07.07.2017 is as illegal, devoid of merits, unconstitutional, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to release the periodical increments which are due to him by regularizing the suspension period from 14.09.2010 to 10.02.2011 as well as removal period from 11.02.2011 to 18.08.2011 with all consequential benefits by setting aside the punishment imposed by the 4th respondent through point No.5 of his order, vide No.PA/19(510/2011- Dy.CTM.A. dt. 20.07.2011…” 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the APSRTC in the year 1999. His services were regularized on 01.01.2002, and was discharging his duties sincerely and efficiently. While so, on 11.03.2010, while driving a bus on the route from Narpala to Anantapuramu, a tractor loaded with bricks suddenly entered the main road from a side road. In an attempt to avoid collision and safeguard passengers, the petitioner swerved the bus slightly to the right. At that moment, a TATA Magic van, overloaded with passengers and driven in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, collided with the bus. As a result, the petitioner sustained a fracture, the conductor and passengers suffered injuries, and one passenger died. Pursuant to which, a case was registered against the petitioner by Bukkarya Samudram Police P a g e | 3 Station for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner was also subjected to departmental enquiry. Though the enquiry revealed that the bus was being driven at a moderate speed and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA Magic van, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent, vide orders dated 18.08.2011, granted reinstatement of the petitioner with a penalty of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Against that, the petitioner filed review petition and the same was rejected. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner approached to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu. During the pendency of the claim before the Industrial Tribunal, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Anantapur, by judgment dated 14.10.2011 in C.C.No.343 of 2010, acquitted the petitioner. However, the Industrial Tribunal, vide Award dated 09.05.2017 in I.D. No.24 of 2015, dismissed the petitioner’s claim without properly considering the acquittal and other relevant facts. 3. Aggrieved by that, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. P a g e | 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment in Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur District Vs Ch.Suresh Babu1, wherein it was held that the APSRTC has failed to produce sufficient material to prove that the driver had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner as such the findings arrived by the enquiry officer in that regard are to be perverse. Having held so, the labour court not only denied the back wages, but also ordered withholding his two annual increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner therein approached this Court, wherein this Court while referring to the observations in various cases relied upon therein held that where the court sets aside the termination as a consequence of employee being exonerated or being found not guilty of the misconduct and if the court reaches a conclusion that the inquiry was held in respect of a frivolous issue or petty misconduct, as a camouflage to get rid of the employee or victimize him, and the disproportionately excessive punishment is a result of such scheme or intention. In such cases, the principle relating to back wages etc., will be the same as those applied in the cases of an illegal termination. 6. Placing reliance on the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the appellate authority set aside the order of removal and reinstated the petitioner into service, the same ought to be treated as a case of wrongful termination; as such, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits, including back wages and continuity of service. 1 2019 (2) ALD 264 (DB) P a g e | 5 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and submitted that the appellate authority did not exonerate the petitioner of the charges, but merely modified the punishment by reinstating him into service on humanitarian grounds, while affirming the findings of negligence on part of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any consequential benefits. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the disciplinary authority/5th respondent, after elaborately considering the case of the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 11.02.2011, removed the petitioner from service holding that the petitioner, being a driver of a passenger carrying vehicle, ought to have driven very cautiously and, despite noticing the oncoming vehicle, failed to take proper precautions such as blowing the horn and slowing down the bus to avoid the incident. However, in appeal, the 4th respondent, taking into consideration the long service rendered by the petitioner since 1999 and that he had not been involved in any other major accident, considered his case on humanitarian grounds with a hope that he would perform his duties with utmost care and dedication in future, and accordingly reinstated him into service, while imposing the major punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The Industrial Tribunal, upon considering the contentions of the petitioner, including his acquittal in C.C. No.343 of 2010 dated 14.10.2011, wherein the criminal court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond P a g e | 6 reasonable doubt and that the Tata Magic Van was overloaded with passengers, observed that such acquittal does not exempt the petitioner from liability in departmental proceedings. Accordingly, it upheld the modification of punishment made by the appellate authority. In such circumstances, this Court finds no perversity in the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 9. That apart, it is not a case where the petitioner was exonerated of the charges; on the contrary, the appellate authority, while accepting the findings of the disciplinary authority regarding the negligence of the petitioner in discharging his duties, reinstated him into service only on humanitarian grounds by imposing the aforesaid punishment, taking into consideration his length of service and with a hope that he would discharge his duties with utmost care and caution in future. Therefore, such reinstatement cannot be treated as exoneration from the charges and, as such, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Depot Manager, APSRTC, Guntur District’s case (cited supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner failed to make out any case to interfere with the punishment imposed by the appellate authority as was confirmed by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, as such, writ petition fails. 11. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed P a g e | 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs P a g e | 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 4052 OF 2023 Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs