B S Narayana Vs the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Apsrtc

B S NARAYANA, S/O SRIRAMULU, AGE 58 YEARS, APSRTCDRIVER-(TERMINATED), R/ D. NO. 5-72/1, DONTIKURRU MARLA CHERUVU, KATERINKONA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION APSRTC, REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR RTC HOUSE PNBS VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶13

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, RAJAMAHEDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI REGION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC MANAGER, APSRTC, RAJAMAHEDRAVARAM, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER, EAST GODAVARI REGION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, RAZOLE DEPOT, EAST GODAVARI REGION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

2

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF EXCISE, , THE SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU (SEB), TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandmus declaring the Impugned proceedings No.PA/95(5)/2020-RZL, dated 08-01-2025 of the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principal of Natural Justice and Violation Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and contrary to the Order of this Honble Court in 9504/2022 dated 18-10-2024 and consequently set-aside the impugned Order dated 08-01-2025 by directing to re-instate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits along with continuity of Service and pass order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem feet and proper in the circumstance of the case.

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No.PA/95(5)/2020RZL, dated 08-01-2025 of the respondent by directing the respondents to Re-instate in duty as Driver pending the above Writ Petition and pass order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.G SIMHADRI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

2.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.20539 of 2025

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The Present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings No.PA/95(5)/2020-RZL, dated 08.01.2025 issued by Respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

The brief facts of the case are as follows;

¶34

The Petitioner was initially appointed as contract Driver in the Respondent-Corporation and his services were regularized on 16.03.2019. It is stated that the Petitioner had received an Appreciation Letter, dated 07.06.2019 for best K.M.P.L for the month of May, 2019 for saving 7,083 liters of HSD oil. While the Petitioner was on Cargo duty with the vehicle No.AP 05 Z 0126 (DGT) on 01.08.2020, the checking officials of HES, Tanuku found that the Petitioner was carrying three liquor bottles i.e. (i) Mansion House Bottle of 750 ml. (ii) Mansion House Bottle of 1 Ltr. (iii) Royal Stag Bottle of 750 ml. in his personal luggage bag. Accordingly, a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner vide Crime No.187/2020 on the file the SHO of Excise, S.E.B. Tadepalligudem,

¶35

4

¶36

West Godavari District for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

¶37

At the same time, a charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner on 03.08.2020. The charge against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had carried liquor bottles illegally in his personal luggage bag from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh while performing Cargo duty with vehicle No. AP 05 Z 0126 (DGT) on 01.08.2020, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. No. 28(xv) & (xvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge on 17.08.2020.

¶38

Pursuant to the explanation offered by the Petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 10.10.2020 and in pursuance of the enquiry report the Petitioner submitted his remarks/comments against the enquiry report. However, the Petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 04.11.2020. The appeal as well as review petitions filed by the Petitioner were dismissed vide orders dated 23.12.2020 and 02.01.2021 respectively. The Petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.9504 of 2022 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 18.10.2024.

¶39

5

¶40

In the interregnum, the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 30.03.2022 in C.C.No.303 of 2021 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem.

¶41

In the light of the acquittal in the criminal case, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.9504 of 2022 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 18.10.2024 setting aside the order of removal dated 04.11.2020 with a direction to the Respondents to re-examine the Petitioner after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Consequently, the Respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 confirming the order of punishment from removal of service as fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶42

In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4, it is stated that the Petitioner was found with three liquor bottles i.e. (i) Mansion House Bottle of 750 ml. (ii) Mansion House Bottle of 1 Ltr. (iii) Royal Stag Bottle of 750 ml. in his personal luggage bag. It is stated that a detailed enquiry was called for duly nominating AM(T)/Amalapuram as Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry submitted a detailed report on

¶43

6

¶44

10.10.2020 holding that the charges against the Petitioner were proved pursuant a show-cause notice dated 26.10.2020 and order of removal of Petitioner from service on 04.11.2020.

¶45

It is stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the case of the Petitioner was re-examined. As regards the criminal case, it is stated that the acquittal of the Petitioner in the criminal case stands totally on a different footing. As such, both the proceedings are independent. Further, it is stated that the Petitioner had admitted transportation of liquor bottles while performing Cargo duty and the same is against the public policy and therefore the impugned order of punishment was imposed.

¶46

Learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri G. Simhadri would submit that once the Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the order of punishment should have been set-aside by the Respondent authorities considering that the allegation and the nature of evidence in both the proceedings is the same. The learned counsel would further submit that even assuming for the sake of argument that the Petitioner had carried three liquor bottles in his personal bag the same would not amount to gross misconduct warranting punishment of removal from service.

¶47

7

¶48

Learned Standing Counsel Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada submits that the Petitioner was found guilty in the enquiry report with regard to the transportation of liquor bottles, which were prohibited in the State of Andhra Pradesh at that point of time and as such the same being an extreme act warrants dismissal from service.

¶49

Having heard the respective counsel, the issue that falls for consideration is whether the order of removal of the Petitioner from service can be sustained.

¶50

After the change of State government in 2019, a new excise policy was pursued by then Government. Initially, as per G.O.Ms.No.411, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 24.09.2019 the individuals were permitted to possess three bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 24.09.2019 was modified vide G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 26.10.2020. As per the G.O.Ms.No.441, dated 24.09.2019 possession and transportation of liquor and other intoxicants upto the limits as mentioned below is permitted;

¶51

a) Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)	:	3 bottles of any size
b) Foreign Liquor (FL)	:	3 bottles of any size.
c) Denatured / emthylated spirit	:	3 bulk litres
d) Beer	:	6 bottles of 650ml each
e) Toddy	:	2 bulk litres
f) Rectified spirit / intoxicating drugs	:	Nil.

¶52

8

¶53

13. The above notification was issued under section 14 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. This Court in W.P.No s .10289 and 14346 of 2020 considered the validity of registration of crimes under section 34(a) AP Excise Act, 1968 in view of G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 24.09.2019. After considering the respective arguments, a detailed Judgment was pronounced on 01.09.2020 holding that possession of liquor and other intoxicants upto the limits prescribed in G.O.Ms. No.411, dated 24.09.2019 is not a crime at all. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted below;

¶54

“ CONCLUSION :

¶55

This Court is, therefore, of the clear view that the possession or the transportation of liquor and other intoxicants etc., upto the limits as per the G.O.Ms.No.441, dated 24.09.2019

¶56

which are as follows:

¶57

*a) Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)*	:	*3 bottles of any size*
*b) Foreign Liquor (FL)*	:	*3 bottles of any size.*
*c) Denatured / emthylated spirit*	:	*3 bulk litres*
*d) Beer*	:	*6 bottles of 650ml each*
*e) Toddy*	:	*2 bulk litres*
*f) Rectified spirit / intoxicating drugs*	:	*Nil.*

¶58

is not an offence whether the liquor is purchased in the State of Andhra Pradesh or if the liquor etc., is purchased outside the

¶59

9

¶60

State of Andhra Pradesh and is brought into the State of Andhra Pradesh .

¶61

For the above reasons, W.P.No.14386 of 2020 is allowed. The action of the State in registering the crime on the ground that the alcohol is brought into Andhra Pradesh from the neighboring State is held to be bad in law . All further proceedings under Crime No.95 of 2020 of Rampachodavaram Police Station, are quashed, in line with the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bajanlal ’s case (3 supra), since the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR etc., do not disclose the commission of any offence. Consequently, a direction is issued to the respondents to immediately release the vehicle bearing No.AP 31 ZG T/R 2970.”

¶62

The above G.O.Ms. No.411, dated 24.09.2019 was modified vide G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 26.10.2020. As per the G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 26.10.2020 apart from transport of two liters of duty free liquor, no transport of any intoxicant manufactured or produced outside the state is permitted except on advance permit for such transport. However, the G.O.Ms No.310, dated 26.10.2020 has no application to the facts of this case as the seizure was on 01.08.2020 when the G.O.Ms No.411, dated 24.09.2019 was in vogue. Going by the

¶63

10

¶64

Judgment of this Court referred supra, the act of the Petitioner in bringing the 3 liquor bottles on 01.08.2020 is not a crime at all.

¶65

15. Unfortunately, this well considered and well reasoned Judgment of this Court in W.P.No s .10289 and 14346 of 2020, dated 01.09.2020 was not brought to the notice of the criminal Court nor to the disciplinary authorities. The Petitioner is castigated for an act which is neither a crime nor a misconduct at the time of surprise check on 01.08.2020.

¶66

The prosecution, defence and the criminal Court unaware of the Judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.10289 and 14346 of 2020, dated 01.09.2020 conduct full trial and the c riminal case filed against the Petitioner was dismissed as there was no proof to establish the crime against the Petitioner.

¶67

In view of the above, the impugned order of removal is liable to be set-aside. As regards backwages from the date of removal dated 04.11.2020 till re-instatement, the Respondent shall consider the fact that removal of the Petitioner was wholly unwarranted for the aforesaid reasons and accordingly pass a reasoned order.

¶68

In view of the above, the Writ petition is allowed with following directions;

¶69

11

¶70

(a) The impugned order of removal vide No.PA/95(5)/2020-RZL dated 08.01.2025 is declared to be bad and is set-aside.

¶71

(b) The petitioner shall be re-instated into service forthwith.

¶72

(c) As regards backwages from the date of initial order of removal dated 04.11.2020 till re-instatement, the Respondent shall consider the fact that removal of the petitioner was wholly unwarranted for the aforesaid reasons and accordingly pass a reasoned order thereto within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶73