Dr. A.Subrahmanyam filed a writ petition against APSRTC. The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the petitioner was removed from service and subsequently died.
The Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURTOF ANDHRAPRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MSJUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
WRIT PETITION NO: 5224 OF 2015
Between:
A.Subrahmanyam, S/o. Kodanda Rama Rao, Age: 52 years, Occ: Driver, E.No.503362, R/o.Brundavanam Real Estate, Behind St.Mary School, Atmakuru, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.
...PETITIONER
AND
...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 to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus —
i) declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension and also initiating steps for disciplinary proceedings against him by way of issuing Charge Sheet vide Proceedings No.01/227(2)/2014-UDGR, dt.19-11-2014 and also Proceedings No.01/227(2)/2014-UDGR, dt.19-11-2014 respectively as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, mala fide, discriminatory, non application of mind, contrary to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' and the 'doctrine of promissory estoppel, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, colorable exercise of powers and also contrary to the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and also the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 r/w. Circular of the 1st respondent vide Lr.No./95ba(1)/12-HES, dt.22-092012 and also violative of the Sec.185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 besides violative of the Arts.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 6948 OF 2015)
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 operation of the Proceedings No.01/227(2)/2014-UDGR, dt.19-112014 and also Proceedings No.01/227(2)/2014-UDGR, dt.19-11-2014 'issued by the 3rd respondent In placing the petitioner under suspension and also In Initiating disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner by way of issuing charge sheet respectively pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRI. PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : SRI F DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC
The Court made the following : ORDER
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICEB.S.BHANUMATHI
Writ Petition No.5224 of 2015
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "... to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in placing the petitioner under. suspension and also initiating steps for disciplinary proceedings against him by way of issuing Charge Sheet vide proceedings No. 01/227(2)/201-UDGR, dt. 19.11.2014 and also Proceedings No.01/227(2)/2014-UDGR, dt. 19.11.2014 respectively as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide, discriminatory, non application of mind, contrary to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation and the 'doctrine of promissory estoppels, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, colorable exercise of powers and also contrary to the APSRTC employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963 and also the APSRTC employees (classification, control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 r/w Circular of the 1st respondent vide r . No I95a/11/ 12-HES, dt 22.09.20'2 and also violative of the Section 185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 besides violative of the Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the charge sheet vide proceedings No. 01/227(2)/201-UDGR, dt.
2 W.P.No.5224 of 2015
19.11.2014 and also Proceedings No. 01/227(2)/2014-UDGR, dt. 19.11.2014 respectively issued by the 3`d respondent by exonerating the petitioner from charges in order to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as usual ..."
respondents, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
SDI-SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR
IITRUECOPY// 9 ~ S I1SEC4IONOFFICER
To, 1. OneCC toSRI. PEE T A KAMAN Advocate [OPU, 2. OneCC to SRI. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Advocate [OPUC1 3.Three CD Copies Madhu , '
HIGH COURT
DATED:05/09/2023
ORDER
WP.No.5224 of 2015
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
A.Subrahmanyam
The A.P.State Road Transport Corporation
B S Bhanutmathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
