The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a contract driver seeking reinstatement after dismissal for causing a major accident. The Court held that the petitioner ought to have approached the Labour Court instead of directly filing the writ petition, distinguishing the relied-upon Telangana High Court precedents on factual grounds.
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.
APHC010041582013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 34030/2013
Between: Sk.g.basha
...PETITIONER
AND
A P S R T C and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.P GOVINDA RAJULU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)
The Court made the following Order:
The petitioner was engaged as a contract driver by the respondent corporation in the year 2009. On 28.11.2010, the petitioner caused an accident which resulted in severe damage to the bus and injuries to thirteen passengers. An enquiry was conducted and disciplinary proceedings were initiated, ultimately resulting in the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 08.02.2012. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and a review before the revisional authority in vain. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking reinstatement/re-engagement as contract driver.
HN, J 2 W.P.No.34030_2013
HN, J 3 W.P.No.34030_2013
was caused to the bus and thirteen passengers suffered injuries. It is further submitted that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a mini lorry, which was parked on the right side of the road. That apart, it is also submitted in the counter by the respondents that the petitioner did not submit any objections to the enquiry report and also failed to submit his explanation for the show cause notice of termination dated 20.12.2011. It is submitted that due procedure was followed before imposing the punishment.
HN, J 4 W.P.No.34030_2013
This court cannot consider the issue in such directions of these facts and circumstances.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date: 05.11.2024 NKA
HN, J W.P.No.34030_2013
5
210
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.34030 of 2013
Date: 05.11.2024
NKA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contract employee dismissed for rash driving causing an accident can directly approach the High Court for reinstatement without exhausting the remedy before the Labour Court.
Sk.g.basha
A P S R T C and Others
HARINATH.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
