Conductor removed from service for absenteeism challenged his removal under Article 226. Following an interim reinstatement order and the petitioner's later voluntary retirement in 2019, the High Court closed the writ petition as no further orders were required.
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 COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
V
T'V
O':
I- rvn
ct C-.u
v' W
O
WRIT PETITION NO: 28960 OF 2015
Between:
M.R.K.Rao, S/o Surya Prakash Rao, a/o 49 yrs, Conductor,R/oFlatNo. 310, Rajyalaxmi Estates, Steel Plant Hospital Road, Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam
...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 or direction moreparticularly oneinthe nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceeding No. P1/1 (32) /2014ELSM dt. 21.08.2014 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential Proceedings No.PA /20(136)/2014-DY.CTM-EG dt.28.10.2014 and Proceedings no. PA/20 (116)/14-RM.EG and Proceedings No. PA/675 (16)/15-ED-VZM dt.11.06.2015 of the 2 nd 3'"^ and 4^^ respondents confirming the punishment of removal from service is illegal, arbitrary, void, discriminative and contrary to law and consequentially reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 37562 OF 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceeding No. PI/1 (32) /2014-ELSM dt. 21.08.2014 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential Proceedings No.PA /20(136)/2014DY.CTM-EG dt.28.10.2014 and Proceedings No. PA/20 (116)/14-RM.EG and Proceedings No. PA/675 (16)/15-ED-VZM dt.11.06.2015 of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents pending disposal of the writ petition.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP. NO: 4173 OF 2017)
Between:
M.R.K.Rao, S/o Surya Prakash Rao, a/o 49 yrs. Conductor,R/oFlatNo. 310, Rajyalaxmi Estates, Steel Plant Hospital Road, Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam
...PETITIONER
AND
% Godavari Dist.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in WPMPNo.37562/2015 in WP No. 28960/2015 dated 13.10.2015
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANIKANTA, ADVOCATEREPRESENTING FOR SRI T S VENKATARAMANA
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA(SCFOR APSRTC)
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
APHC010428322015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28960/2015
Between:
M.r.k.rao,
...PETITIONER
AND
The Depot Manager A P S R T C and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.TS VENKATARAMANA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following relief:
“ ..to issue a writ or order or direction more particularlyoneinthenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceeding No.P1/1 (32) /2014-ELSM dt.21.08.2014 issued by the P' respondent and the consequential Proceedings No.PA /20(136)/2014-DY.CTM-EG dt.28.10.2014 and Proceedings no. PAJ20(116)/14-RM.EG and Proceedings No.P/V675 (16)115-ED- VZM dt.11.06.2015 of the 2'’“', 3^^ and 4‘^ respondents confirming the punishment of removal from service is illegal, arbitrary..’’
- The case of the petitioner, in brief, the petitioner has been appointed in 1988 in Corporation as a Security Guard and posted to Vishakhapatnam and subsequently, he was transferred in 1996 as SecurityGuardtoEleswaram Depot. Later on, in the year 1998, during Departmental selection, the petitioner was selected as conductor and since then he has been performing his duties sincerely. While so, on 22.06.2014 after completing his duty, the petitioner went to home and on that day his wife while cooking got burnt her body as such the petitioner took her to KGH Hospital, Visakhapatnam and admitted her. The petitioner informed his colleagueconductorsanddriversto inform the same to the Depot Manager and to apply for leave. After the family members and elders came to the said hospital to attendthenecessitiesofthe petitioner’s wife, the petitioner returned to Eleswaram and reported to duty on 29.06.2014. But, despite narrating the above facts, the 1®* respondent did not allow the petitioner to joint duty, in contra issued a charge sheet dated 30.06.2014. Though the petitioner submitted an explanationon17.08.2014to
3
the said charge sheet, along with medical certificates and photos of his injured wife, the same was not considered by the 1 St respondent and issued the proceedings removing the petitioner from service by order dated 21.08.2014 which was further confirmed in the appeal, review and as well as the mercy petition filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority. Challenging the said orders, the present Writ Petition is filed.
- Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
'A
“ Heard both sides.
Since the removal order dated 21.08.2014 passed bythe 1 St respondent is in respect of the absenteeism for five days, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
6, Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.T.Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. has produced a copy of the Office Order dated 02.11.2015 of Office of the Regional Manager, Rajahmundry, dated 02.11.2015, which shows that in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court on 13.10.2015, the Regional Manager has ordered to reinstate the petitioner into services, subject to the medical fitness and following all the formalities and to report compliance. Thereafter the
4
petitioner joined for duties, but, however, has submitted a representation on 18.05.2019 requesting the respondent authorities to grant him voluntary retirement, which was also accepted by the Office on 19.07.2019 and accordingly, the petitioner got retired from service on 19.07.2019. 8. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in this matter, Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/-M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
SECTION OFFICER
TF
HIGH COURT
DATED:22/08/2024
ORDER
WP.No.28960 of 2015
^ ^ jS^
X
1 1 FEB* 2025 ^
si
. Current Section ^
’ts^6SPATC'^*!S!!!^
CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.R.K. Rao
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Eleswaram, East Godavari District
The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rajahmundry Region
The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., EG Region, Rajahmundry
The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., VZM Zone, Vizianagaram
The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
