Allowed

S.Mahipal Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Telangana HC3 Aug 2011WP/21869/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the termination of a driver due to unauthorized absence. The High Court held that without a show cause notice or domestic enquiry, the order violated principles of natural justice and prescribed procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner reinstated into service with immediate effect; no back wages or monetary benefits; no costs.

S.Mahipal Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, Vs The… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.21869 OF 2011

Between:

S. Mahipal Reddy

..... PETITIONER

AND

The Regional Manager, APSRTC and another

¶11

....RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21869 OF 2011

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

The petitioner was engaged as Driver, on contractual basis, on 20.03.2006. He joined the service and was being entrusted with the duties. On the ground that he remained absent unauthorizedly from 21.04.2007 to 30.05.2007, without permission, the Depot Manager, Kukatpally Depot, the 2^nd respondent, terminated the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶16

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

¶17

Though the engagement of the petitioner was on contractual basis, the Corporation was under obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under the Regulations for disciplinary matters. Neither any show cause notice was issued, nor any domestic enquiry was directed. The order suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of prescribed procedure.

¶18

Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner into service with immediate effect. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to any back wages, or other monetary benefits, on account of this order, and it shall be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary action, in accordance with law, if they so intend. There shall be no order as costs.

¶19

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶20

August 03, 2011 MD

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.21869 OF 2011

¶23

August 03, 2011

¶24

S.Mahipal Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mahipal Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

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

M. Rami Reddy Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and Commissioner

Burla Sreelakshmi Vs Tanikonda Venkata Subbamma

Mangamuri Hanumantha Rao Vs Mangamuri Venkata Krishna Rao

O.Ranga Lakshmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Kurapati Stalin Vs Rebba Yesobu

Sajja Malleswara Rao Vs Sajja Nageswara rao