Disposed

B.Bixapathi, E-650953, v. The Apsrtc

Telangana HC18 Feb 2019WP/10864/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition filed by a driver acquitted in criminal proceedings, who challenged his removal from service. The High Court declined to decide on merits but directed the petitioner to file a mercy petition with the respondent to reconsider his case for reinstatement within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file mercy petition; respondent to consider it on merits and pass order within six weeks.

B.Bixapathi, E-650953, Vs The Apsrtc — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IV1ONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 10864 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

B.Bixapathi, E-650953, A.P.S.R.T.C.,Driver,^S/o. Uppalaiah, 41^yrs, Narsampet Depot, R/o. Narsampet, Warangal^District. - ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The APSRTC, rep by^its Vice Chairman^{& Managing Director, Musheerabad'} Hyderabad.

¶10

2 The Executive Director, APSRTC^{Karimnagar Zone, at Karimnagar.} 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC,^{Warangal Region, at Hanamkonda, Warangal} District.

¶11

4 The Dy.Chief Traffic tVanager,^{APSRTC, Warangal Region, at Hanamkonda,} Warangal District.

¶12

The Ddpot lvlanager, APSRTC,^{NarsampetDepot,Warangr,O.1]H'E!PO*DENTS}

¶13

Petition under Arlicle 226 of^{the Constitution of Indiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue an order or direction^{more padicularlyone in the nature of writ of lMandamus} declaring the action of the 5th^{respondentin imposing the punishmentof Removal} from service, besides treating the^{suspension period as not on duty without} conducting enquiry as^{per the circular instructions, vide Proc No::01 12(06)2009-} NSPT, Dt 15-5-2010, which^{was confirmedby the Appellate,Reviewauthority and as} well as by the E.D on 12-8-2011,13.8-2012^{and28-3-2013 respectivelyas high} handed and arbitrary action,^{contraryto APSRTC Regulations, contrary to the circular} instructions and as such^{liableto be set asidein the interest of justice and keeping in} view of the acquittal of the^{petitioner,Dl 23-11-2011inCCNo:398/2009, on the file} of the JIi/FC, Special^{lrrlobile,Armoor, Nizamabad with a consequential directionto} the respondents herein to^{extendall the benefitsfor the removal period alongwith} back wages forthwith

¶14

W PMP. NO: 13445OF 2013

¶15

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High court may be pleased to Direct the} 3rd respondent to review the^{punishmentorder Dt 15-5-2010and to reinstatethe} petitioner fo(hwith, pending disposal of the writ Petition. forthwith,^{pending disposal} of the Writ Petition

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{S M SUBHAN}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: K^SRINIVASARAO

¶18

The Coud made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BtE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. ,l n 864 ol 2013 ORDER:

¶20

This writ peiition is filed seeking following rellef :-

¶21

"......... to issue an order or direction more particutarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the 5th respondent in imposing the punishment of Removal from service, besides treating the suspension period as not on duty without conducting en(uiry as per the circutar instructions vide Proc.No.01/2(06)2009-NSPT, Dt.15.05.2010 which was confirmed by the Appettate, Review authority and as wet[ as by the E.D. on 12.8.2011, 13.8.2012 and 28.3.2013 respectivety as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regutations, contrary to the circutar instructions and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of^justice and keeping in view of the acquittat of the petitioner DL73.11.2011 in C.C.No.398/2009 on the fite of the JFCM, Speciat Mobite, Armoor, Nizamabad with a consequentiat direction to the respondents herein to extend atl the benefits for the removal period atong with back wages forthwith..... ".

¶22

Heord Mr.S.M.Subhon, leorned counsel for petitioner ond

¶23

Mr.B.Moyur Reddy, leorned Stonding Counsel for respondents.

¶24

ll hos been contended by the petitioner lhot he wos initiolly oppointed os o driver with the respondents during ihe yeor l99B ond since then,. he hos been dischorging his duties without ony comploint. While so, during September,2009, it is olleged ihqt the petitioner hos indulged in o fotol occident ond lhe respondents hove initioted disciplinory proceedings followed by criminol proceedings. The respondents without properly conducting ony enquiry hod imposed punishment of removol, which wos confirmed by the^qppellote outhority, reviewing oulhority ond the 2nd respondent. After imposition of punishment of removol, the competent Criminol Court wos pleosed to ocquit the petitioner in

¶25

¶26

C.C.No.398^{of 2009 on 23'll2Oll'Thereofier'the petitionerhos} submitted o^{representotionto the respondents requestingto} consider his^{cose for reinstotement by duly toking into occounl ihe} foct thot ihe^{petilioner wos ocquilted in criminql cose ond the 2nd} respondent^{videproceedings doted 28'03'2013 hod reiected the} cose of^{the petitionerwiihoul properlyopprecioting the coseoi the} petitioner in terms^{of Circulor doted21 '07 '1995'}

¶27

Leorned^{counselfor petitionersubmils thot when on} employee^{is removedfrom serviceduringpendency of criminol} cose ond^{thereofierhe is ocquiited of the soid criminolcose'in} such on^{eveni, the respondentsore bound to considerthe cose of} the^{petiiionerin the light of ocquiitol in criminol cose qndposs} independent^{order whether ihe petitioner is fii for reinstolement into} service.^{But, in lhe instontcose' ihe 2nd respondent'without} properly opprecloting^{the cose of the petilioner'hod mechonicolly} rejecled^{lhe cose vide proceedings doted28'03'2013'}

¶28

Leorned^{counsel for pelitioner submitsthot opproprioteorders} be^{possed in the writ petition directing the respondentslo} re-consider^{ihe coseof the petitionerin view of ocquittol in criminql} cose strictly^{in terms of Circulor doted 2l '07 '1995 ond poss} opproPrioie^orders.

¶29

LeornedSlondingCounseloppeoringforrespondenishos submitted^{thot the coseof the petitioner wos considered in lermsof} Circulor^{doted 2l.07'1995ond ii wos rejected vide proceedings} doted^{28.03.2013 Aport from thoi the pelitioner hos got other} stotutory^{remediesto opprooch the respondentsby woy of mercy} peiiiion to consider^{his cose for reinsiotementin view of his ocquittol}

¶30

¶31

in C.C.No.398 of^{2009. Therefore. there ore no meritsin the writ} petition ond the some^{is liobleto be dismissed'}

¶32

This Court, hoving^{considered the rivol submissions' is of the} considered view^{thot the writ petition con be disposedof directing} the^{pelitioner to file o mercy petilion before the 2nd rbspondenl to} consider his cose^{for reinsiotementin view of his ocquittolin} C.C.No.398 of^{2009doted23.'l 1.201.l.Uponsuch petitionbeing} received, the^{2nd respondenl shqll consider the cose of the} petitioner ond^poss oppropriole^{orders strictlyin occordoncewith} the Circulor doted^{21 .07.1995within six weeks from the dote of} receipt of mercy^{petition. lt is needless to soy thot the2nd} respondent sholl^{consider the mercy pelition filed by the petilioner} onmeritswithoutbeinginfluencedbylheeorlierrejectionorder doted 28.03.2013.

¶33

With the obove^{observolions, lhe writ petition is occordingly}

¶34

disposed of.^{No orderos to costs.}

¶35

Pending miscelloneous^{petitions, if ony,sholl slondclosed'}

¶36

SDi.N.PURUSHOTHAM^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶37

Note: on^{being mentioned, that in 3'd, 6th} I9l.l-lnti;I"ii rtl, "t" P-a ra^g ra^{p h of th e o rd e r d ate.d:} .1-B I 0 21 20^{1 e} -lill"^{wi. r.ro. ioa'6+ of 2013 the words "3rd respondent"} respondent^{as per the-orders of the} i. ".-tr"ti"a "i-'i2nd ;J;i;-C;;tt^{dated: 1d/03/2021made in lA' No'1 of 201e in} WP. No. 10864^{of 2013.} order shall^{substitute the earlier order} "' ' "it i" ".ended wnicfr iras^{atready been despatched on 2110212O19'}

¶38

Sd/. I. NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶39

//TRUE^COPY//

¶40

SECTION^OFFICER

¶41

To, 1 . The Regional^{Manager, APSRTC, Warangal Region' at Hanamkonda' Warangal} District. 5il'C'c to Sri^{S M Subhan Advocate toPV-CI} - .^. . 5;; dd io^{s-r.i'e.rvavriR;,iov(sctbH rsntc)' Advocate' (oPUc)} 4. Two CD CoPies mbs rS 'Ar-

¶42

HIGH COURT

¶43

DATED:1810212019 1810312021

¶44

{ HE SI4 fc
ti:
ot) 04MAv 20 21 c')
{
i' -' ::,

¶45

AMENDED ORDER

¶46

WP.No.10864 of 2013

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

B.Bixapathi, E-650953, v. The Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Bixapathi, E-650953, 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

Mohmed Ilias Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Boddu Sudhakar Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limitfd (Npdctl)

G.Esther Vs The State of Telangana

B.Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

E.Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

B. Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana