Allowed

S. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, v. Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Telangana HC6 Mar 2023WP/30562/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed termination, appellate, and review orders against a driver already included in a valid regularisation list. The Court held that subsequent adverse orders based on past lapses violated the regularisation order and principles of natural justice due to lack of personal notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination order dated 31.03.2011 and consequent review order dated 11.07.2013 quashed; petitioner granted full benefits of regularisation order dated 25.03.2011.

S. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 30562 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

S. Venkat Reddy, Sio. Chandra Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Driver, C.No.912287, No. 3-12515913/16, N.l.N. Colony, Boduppal, R.R. District, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC'x' Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region, M.G.B.S., Gowliguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot. Uppal, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Mehdipatnam, Hyd.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of removal issued in Proc. No. E2|1'(81)|2O1O-MP, dated 31 .03.2011 and consequential orders of the 2nd respondent issued in Proc. No. Ptu586(138y2013-HR, dated 11.07.20'13 in not treating the reinstatement as regular driver with all consequential benefits and not implementing the regularization order dated 25.03.2011 as arbitrary, unjust, capricious and in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court to treat the re-engagement as fresh driver on contract basis as that of reinstatement as regular driver with

¶17

continuity of ser\ ice, attendant benefits back wagel; alc ng with other consequential arrea s of pay in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶18

LA- NQ: 1 OF 2013( ^/PMP.

¶19

NO: 37948 OF 2013)

¶20

Petition unde {iection 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;r.rmsta nces stated in the affidavit fileo in r upport of the petition, the High Court may te pleased to direct the respondents to pay the regular scale of pay along 'rvi h other allowance attached to the pos c,f driver as per the Proc. No. E31255()2)12()10-GHZ, dated 25.O3.2O11 pending Jisposal of the above writ petition tn the inlerest of iustice and fair play.

¶21

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRl. V. NARASIMHA GOUD Gounsel for the Res:ondents: SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS SC FOlt TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

)

¶23

THE HOITI'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3O5 62 of 2OL3

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶27

India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following prayer:

¶28

". . ..to issue an appropiate wit or d.irection partianlarlg one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, qrash th. impigned order of removal issued in^prcc.No.E2/ tlSI)/20Io_Mi, iated 31.03.2011 and consequential orders of tlv 2nd respondent

¶29

rlssued in Proc.No.pA/ 586(138)/ 2013-HR dated lt.b7.2Ots in not treating ttle reinstatement as regular diuer with all

¶30

consequential benefits and not tmplementing the regularizatton order dated 25.03.201j as qrbitrary, unJust, capricious and in uiolation of Art 14, 16 & iI oi the

¶31

C-onslitutio!1 of India and consequently rle petitioner praA this Hon'ble Court to treat the re-engagement-as fresh driu; on conlract basis as that of reinstatement as rerylar d.nuer with @ntinuitA of seruice, attendant beneJits back wages

¶32

along uith other conseEtential a7ectrs of pag in ttrc inte;est ofjustice and fair plag..."

¶33

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as a driver in the respondents-Corporation on 26.04.2006 arrd he was initially terminated from service on 24.O5.2OO7. Aggrieved thereon, the petitioner has preferred an appeal which was rejected and therefore, he has preferred a revision. In the revision, the respondent No.2 has ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner afresh vide order dated 11.08.2010. Challenging the order dated

¶34

2 AAR.J 'rl' . -r0561 of 20 Il

¶35

11.08.20 10, he petitioner has hled W.p.No.26g46 ol 2()10 before thrs Hcrr.r'ble Oourt. This Court uid.e order clate (; 27.10.20l O disposecl oI he said writ petition directing the :.r:r;po rdents to count the int :r"egnum period of removal from servtce. as ,:ontinuity of service. Tl:reafter, based on the order passed in tr/.p No.26g46 of 2010. -he ;ervrces of the petitioner a-long u.ith orh,rr r.mployees were regr)ar sr:d w.e.f. 01.09.2010. While the l€.titi.)ner was working rltd :r the control of respondent No.4, [1,r u :rs again terminatc,l lr rn service on 31.03.2011 on the grourL,l th;it hc u,as absent fr>r rlu ies on 27.O9.2OO9,29.Og.2OOg and fi-c,n. 01.10.2010 to 21.11).2O1 ). Ohallenging the said termirratior crcicr dated 31.03.20 11, t re petitioner has filed Appeal dated 29.r.)4.,).Ot2 and the same'vas rejected by the appellate authorily on ti'.OS.2013 on legally unLenz bie grounds. Aggrieved thereon, the rctitrtner has preferred l?cvi :u' Petition before the respondenL No.2. who in turn was pleast:d t , llass an order dated I 1.O7.2013 ord:r.ng that the petitioner sh ttrld be engaged alresh or corrtr.acr basis. Questionrng tl e order dated 1 l.OT .2013 passed in Rr:,zieu, petition, the pet.itio.er rzLs hled W.p.No.2392 I of 2013 befort: :his Hon,ble High Cour- se rking a direction to treat the alresh r l_engagement

¶36

¶37

3 AAR,J WP No 30552 ol20 tl

¶38

on contract basis as that of reinstatement into service along with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. While the above Writ Petition was pending, on 2g.Og.2O73, the petitioner received regularization order dated 2s.o3.2o11. Therefore, the pelitioner has withdrawn the Writ petition No.2392t of 2Ol3 without prejudice to his rights. In the regr_rlarisation list, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.l4 ard therefore, the petitioner made representations dated 3i.Og.20I3 and 04.O9.2O13 before the respondent No.3 seeking to extend the benefits avairabre to the regularized employees. The authorities on 2T.O}.2OI3 have informed the petitioner that the beneht of regularization order dated 25.03.2O11 cannot be given to him on the ground that respondent No.2 while ordering reinstatement vide order dated I1.07.2013 in the Review petition has ordered for the appointment of the petitioner afresh on contract basis. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present Writ petition challenging the order of terminaLion dated 31.O3.20I I and tJre subsequent orders in Appeal and Review Petition, seeking the relief as prayed for.

¶39

No counter has been filed by the respondents_Corporation till date even though the Writ petition was admitted on 29.1O.2013.

¶40

4 i\AIT.J l/) \o.^i0,s62 oi l0ll

¶41

Hc arcl t rr: learned counsel for the petitioner- a;rcl th : learned Standing^(lou rsel appearing for the respondents-Cor lo rat on,

¶42

Thc lea n :d counsel for the petitioner has s.:ar.ed thal thc allthoritl, co c:rned without taking into consklr:ra'ion the regularis:rlion orders dated 25.O3.2011 passed Lry tL,e I,ersonnel Off rcer-ll(CiHZ , APSRTC, wherein the petitiorler u.ir:i shown at Sl.No.14 and ,y virtue of which, the services ol the :etitioner and othcrs u'crc r, gulzLrised, has passed the terminatio;t ordcr datccl 31.03.20 1-. I rrLt once the regularisation orclers ar. prsscd in favour of the I e itioner, the Depot Manager, Mehrlipal nar e Dcpot, ought not to ri:ve passed the impugned order vidr: pro:eedings No.E2ll(Bll/2 )!t0-MP dated 31.03.2011. It is fur.th,:r stz,Led that thc petitioner v:s not given any show cause noticc brtt t1c samc was aflixcc or t he Notice Board, of which the pctiti,: ter had rro knowledgc. Ev:n the Enquiry Ofhcer did not give ar..y personal notice an<l the s.rme was held behind the back cf the t,etilioner ex parte. Thttt the t,:rmination order dated 31.03.2O1 1, ttre appellate order datcd 17 ):t.2OI3 and the review order dar ed 1 LC 7.2 013 are liable to be set asirle on the sole ground that they :u,t: vio lative of principlcs cf nt tr.rral justice arld cquity. Moreover, th r: sarne werc

¶43

AAR.J WP No 30562 ol l0 i i

¶44

¶45

¶46

passed in ig:norance of the Regularisation order dated 25.03.2011. Therefore, the petitioner prayed this Hon'ble Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for.

¶47

Per contra, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Corporation opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel has stated that the petitioner is in the habit of absenting from work regularly. That the disciplinar5r authority duly taking into consideration that the petitioner has been unauthorisedly absenting himself from duties has passed the impugned order. That the leviewing authority purely on a humanitarian ground has allowed the petitioner to be reengaged as afresh driver on contract basis and ultimately prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶48

Perused the record.

¶49

The learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the order dated 25.O3.2O11 passed by the Personnel Oflicer-lI(GHZ), APSRTC, wherein the services of the petitioner along with 47 others were regularised. A perusal of the said order reveals that the petitioner and others had earlier approached the Hon'ble Court \

¶50

6 AAR.J '<sup>l' .'o 10562 oll0ll

¶51

and basc(1 or .hc orders of this High Court, the j3 rvi( es of the petition€'r artr crthcrs rvere regularised. The namc ol t le fetitioner hgurcs ,rt Sl Nc. r4 in the said list. Once :he s _.r.,,ic< s ol the petitioner ar regularised vide order dated 25 0,1,2()11, the disciplin:rry a lthority, the appellate authority arrcl ..re :-eviewing authoritl,, ou ;ht not have passed the impugned ,lt.de -s. Once regu ltrrisir lion ordcrs at-e passed by the authorrty, ar...r m.i ;conduct or lapses w ich have taken prior to th,: pa;s.ng of the Regularisit[ion Crder, are deemed to have been conooned and thc passing ol th termination order dated 31.03.20 L ha s to bc construe(i as I o 1 rrpplication of mtnd by the authorit., cr ncerned and contrary t, thc regularisation orders dated 25.03.2011 passecl by tl-re Pcrsonr:1 Officer-II(GHZ), APSRTC. Once it is LL,::ld that the terminatior or.er is bad and liable to be set trside, lhe trder of reviewing auth ,r;ty directing the petitioner to br, takerL afr:sh has to be set zrsidc Lnd the petitioner should be give. full rernefLt of the Regularisation o:'der dated 25.O3.2011. In vjew o[ the above circumstanCes, tlte orders passed by the disciplinar). allthority dated 31.03.20 1, appellate authority dated 17.05.2C. .] a:rd that of thc revje,.r,in1 iruthority dated 11.O2.2013, are liat,je to be set

¶52

AAR.J WP No.30562 of 20ll

, I

aside on this ground. Even otherwise on merits, the termination order dated 31.03.20f 1 is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that that no personal notice has been given to the petitioner both at the stage of issuing show cause notice and also by the Enquiry Ofhcer. The order clearly reveals that the petitioner was not given any personal notice but the same was affixed on the Common General Notice Board. Even the Enquiry Oflicer did not give any personal notice and affxed the same on the General Notice Board and conducted the Enquiry ex parte. The principtes of natural justice and equity mandates that the employee be served with a show cause notice and also personal hearing before any adverse order is passed, which has been violated in this case. posting of the Notice on the General Notice Board of the Depot cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as personal Notice to the petitioner. The question of putting the notice in the Notice Board arises only when the employee refuses to take the notice but not otherwise. When the employee is working in the very same depot, it is obligatory on the part of the authority concerned to serve the notice on tJle employee personally. On this ground also the

¶57

¶58

AAIT,J \II^{</sup> r.l0 ;62 of 20 t3}

¶59

impugned orde 's are liable to be set aside. T.rerefcr.t:, litis \r,rit petitjon desetwe i io be allowed

¶60

Accor,lin6 1.^{this Writ} Petition is allowed irnd tlr: impugned Proc. No. E2 / t (8 ),'2()i0-MP dated 31.03.2011 issuerl tr). the respondent No.. irnd consequential order of the resp:r:derit No.2 vide Proc.Nc.PA 586(138)/2013 HR dated 1t.OT 2Ot3 r,rre hereby set a side. The petitioner shall be given full bert:,it of thc Regularisation o der dated 25.03.2011 with a1l benefits

¶61

Conscrluer tly, miscellaneous petitions penrling, ;f ,tn1 , shall stand closecl. Tt :re shall bc no order as to costs

¶62

SD/. MOHD. SAI{AI.'LLAH ANSARI ASSIS'TAiIT REGISTRAR'-r:''"'^',' //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶63

SECTION OFFICER To, ;iffi i#1iJ,iil-f,$:l:?SRi3:["fi "T,'&J'#",%';',f; 21lsl'61ffi Bti", 3. The Depot Mar a(ler. TSRT 4. 5. rd D;-;;iM;; ;il;;;+;ii+,3; B^H BSIS|; V,Bfle,,b:,1iil:::i;l one cC to Sri V Narasimha corJ,-liro"iiliitfrutf b. 7. 9n" 99^{ro Sri. -hoom Srinivas,} Adi"i;b fobLj;i^"' Two CD Copies TJ GJP.U

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:06103 2023

/" (j/.
Li,'
it;-
riP i 2523

¶68

ORDER

¶69

WP.No.30562 tf 2013

¶70

ALLOWING TH E WRIT PETITION

¶71

WITHOUT COS TS.

¶72

¶73

S. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, v. Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, v. Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

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

Smt. Sheribai Eshwaramma Vs Sri. Dr. a. Sharat

Kolisetty Raghunath Kumar Vs Dr.a Sharath

Badam Gangamohan Vs Sri. Somesh Kumar

Badawath Permlal, Nizamabad District. Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd., and 2

Messers.Faraday Electricals Vs the Comm,.for Wokmen Compensation and D.C.L and 2

K. Mamatha d/o Ramalingaiah, 44 years, Vs The Project Officer