Allowed

N.V. Babu, v. The Apsrtc

Telangana HC17 Nov 2011WP/30427/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the arbitrary termination of a contract driver without an enquiry. The Court held that Depot Managers cannot impose major punishments like termination without due procedure in similar circumstances and allowed the petition to restore the driver's position.

What did the court decide?

The impugned termination order dated 16.05.2008 is set aside, and the petitioner is to be re-engaged as a contract driver.

N.V. Babu, Vs The Apsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.30427 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in terminating the petitioner from service on the allegation of unauthorized absence without holding any enquiry and by attached stigma vide proceedings No.P1/1(41)/08 VSP dated 16.05.2008 as arbitrary and contrary to APSRTC regulations and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner by suspending the said proceedings.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as driver on contract basis in the year 2007 and while working at Visakhapatnam Depot, he absented duties from 16.04.2008 to 16.05.2008 without any intimation or prior sanction of leave. Without holding any enquiry, the third respondent passed order dated 16.05.2008 terminating the services of the petitioner. The absence of the petitioner to duties during the above said period is due to his suffering from Jaundice with severe fever and advice of bed rest by the doctor of a private hospital at Rajahmundry. The petitioner further alleges that the said incident was also informed to the Depot Manager by duly submitting Medical Certificates but the Depot Manager refused to receive the same and passed the termination order without holding any enquiry or providing any opportunity to him. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶6

Heard both the sides.

¶7

In similar circumstances, entertaining W.P.No.5998 of 2009, W.P.No.23764 of 2010 and so many other cases, this Court has been making it clear that the Depot Managers are not liable to impose major punishments, orders of termination or disengagement of the services of the contract drivers, without following the due procedure.

¶8

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed right at this stage instead of unproductively keeping it pending on the file of this Court. The impugned order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the Deport Manager, Visakhapatnam, is set aside and the petitioner be re-engaged as a contract driver. He will be entitled to reckon the

¶9

previous service rendered by him prior to 16.05.2008 to the Corporation for such benefits as for regularization, terminal benefits etc., but however, the writ petitioner will not be entitled to any monetary benefit arising from out of the setting aside the proceedings dated 16.05.2008. No costs.

¶10

(G.CHANDRAIAH, J)

¶11

17^th November 2011

¶12

RRB

N.V. Babu, v. The Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.V. Babu, v. The Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Ravinder Raju Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

N.Pandu Vs The Andhra pradesh Road Transport Corporation

M.Veera Sangappa Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

N. Bhaskar Rao Vs The a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director

T. Lakshmana Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M.Yerranna Vs C.R.P.F.Rep.by Inspector General of Police