Dismissed

P.N.Rasool, v. The a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2024WP/45069/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected a writ petition challenging the dismissal of time-barred appeals against a disciplinary order. The petitioner, an APSRTC driver, sought to set aside a penalty of withholding annual increment for unauthorized bus stoppage, arguing the orders were arbitrary. The Court found the doctrine of finality applied as the appeals were filed beyond the statutory limit

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were closed.

P.N.Rasool, Vs The a.P.State Road Transport… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010080392016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3333]

¶5

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 45069/2016

¶9

Between:

¶10

P.N.Rasool, ...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 3 others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶13

1.D RAMAKRISHNA

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶15

¶16

2.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶21

“…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of „Writ of Mandamus‟ declaring that the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the appeal dated 2.4.2014 and review petition dated 5.8.2014 against the punishment imposed vide order dated 22.1.2011 issued by the 4^th respondent as illegal, bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the appeal and review petition filed by the petition on merits or in the alternative set aside the orders of imposing punishment vide order dated 22.1.2011 issued by the 4^th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to extend the consequential benefits to the petitioner herein…”

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver in APSRTC. In the year 2006, while he was working as Driver, while he started his shift at Dharmavaram at 19.00 hours and stopped the bus at Done near a Dhabha for the purpose of dinner at 22.30 hours. The Depot Manager issued a charge memo to the petitioner on 14.10.2006 for stopping the bus at a Dhaba for meals. Thereafter, charge sheet dated 29.01.2007 was issued to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.10.2007. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by order dated 22.01.2011 imposed the penalty of withholding the annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect, holding the charges framed against him as proved. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Ananthapur, but the same was rejected as time barred. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Regional

¶23

¶24

Manager, Anantapur on 05.08.2015 which was also rejected on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation, and therefore, the review petition is also beyond limitation. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to reconsider appeal and review filed by the petitioner or in alternative to set aside the punishment imposed against the petitioner.

¶25

The respondents filed counter, wherein it is stated that basing on the report of the Checking Officials a charge memo was issued to the petitioner for his unauthorized stoppage of bus, which was in violation of the rules of the Corporation. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Having not satisfied with the said explanation, the Depot Manager, Dharmavaram, imposed the punishment of withholding his annual increment for a period of six months, which would not affect his future increments, vide office order dated 22.01.2011. It is further stated that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is in proportionate to the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner. Hence, there are no reasons to interfere with the same.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

¶27

The petitioner was working as a Driver in the APSRTC, Dharmavaram Depot with effect from 01.08.1990. He was booked for Dharmavaram to Hyderabad on 14.10.2006 and while performing his duties, he stopped the bus unauthorizedly at road side Dhaba hotel near Dhone for the purpose of dinner

¶28

¶29

at 20.30 hours. At that time, the checking officials exercised a check and issued a charge memo to the petitioner for his unauthorized stoppage of bus as against the rules of the Corporation. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo to the checking officials on the spot. Further, basing on the memo, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 29.01.2007. For which, the petitioner submitted explanation on 15.10.2007. Having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Depot Manager, Dharmavaram vide order dated 22.01.2011 imposed punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. In the meanwhile, as the petitioner was declared medically unfit to the post of Driver he was appointed as Shramik with effect from 10.07.2013. Thereafter, in the year 2014, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Regional Manager, Anantapuram against the punishment imposed against him by the Depot Manager.

¶30

6. The Regulation 23 of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control

¶31

and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, states that no appeal under part-V shall be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of two months from the date on which the appellant receives a copy of the order appealed against. Since the case pertains to the year 2006 and the petitioner preferred an appeal after long lapse of said period of limitation i.e., after lapse of two years, and as on that date, since the petitioner was working as Shramik at Puttaparthi Depot, the appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner as time barred. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the 3^rd

¶32

¶33

respondent, which was also rejected on the same ground, as the petitioner preferred review after lapse of statutory period of limitation of six months. Therefore, under the regulations, two months period is provided for filing an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority, and six months period for filing a revision against an order to be revised are provided.

¶34

As seen from the record, on the date of incident, while the petitioner was taking the bus from Dharmavaram to Secunderabad, he stopped the bus at unauthorized stage (7/8) at Dhone Dhaba hotel for dinner, which is contrary to the Corporation’s discipline. All services are required to stop for dinner at the APSRTC bus stations, but the petitioner stopped his bus at Dhone Dhaba hotel according to his whims and fancies, which is against the rules of the Corporation. In response to the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, he submitted an explanation; however, the Depot Manager was not satisfied with the explanation and imposed the punishment of withholding the annual increment for six months, without cumulative effect. Subsequently, as the petitioner was found medically unfit for the post of driver, he was appointed as Shramik with effect from 10.07.2013. After lapse of three years, the petitioner filed appeal and review petitions, which were rejected on the grounds that they were time barred. Since the punishment imposed against the petitioner is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him, this Court is of the opinion that there are no reasons to interfere with the said order as it has already attained finality.

¶35

¶36

In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is

¶37

liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶40

¶41

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶42

Date: 05.12.2024 KGR

P.N.Rasool, v. The a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.Rasool, v. The a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Shiva Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

K.Padmavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guttula Venugopalam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Yeruka Naidu Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Guvvala Govindu, Kurnool Dist & Another Vs Prl Secy, Panchayat Raj & Rural Devp Dept., Hyd & 8 Ot

S.R.Moorthy, Chittoor Dist Vs Vc & Md, Apsrtc, Hyd & 2 Others