Telangana High Court
WP/33619/2011 of D. Uma Rani Vs Andhra PRadesh State Road Transport Corporation on 29 December 2011
COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 33619 OF 2011 Between: D. Uma Rani … Petitioner V/s. APSRTC Represented by its Regional Manager, Hyderabad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO.33619 OF 2011
Between:D. Uma Rani … Petitioner V/s.
APSRTC Represented by itsRegional Manager,Hyderabad Region & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A.G. Satyanarayana Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K. Madhava Reddy SC for APSRTC
The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)
WRIT PETITION NO.33619OF 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedstanding counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus todeclare the action of the second respondent to the extent of not ordering re-engagement of the petitioner with continuity of service as contractconductor, as arbitrary and unjust and consequently to direct therespondents to treat the Proceedings No. PA/19(C-67)/ 2009-DVM(CR), dated 6j-10-2009 passed by the second respondentas re-engagement with continuity of service with allconsequential benefits including regularization on par with her juniors and topass such other suitable orders as this court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a contractconductor in the first respondent corporation in May 2006 and since thenshe has been discharging her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors.While so, on 25-4-2009 when the petitioner was asked to perform double duty on service No. 136/2 by the Traffic Inspector and accordingly sheperformed the duties because there was delay on her part for attending theduty she abused herself in harsh language and torn the star documentinfront of the Traffic Inspector. The respondent No.3 issued proceedingsNo. 02/114(C-12090)/09HCU dated 15-7-2009 removing the petitioner fromservice. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred an appeal before thesecond respondent and the second respondent issued proceedings No.PA/19 (C067)/2009-DVM(CR) dated 6-10-2009 while setting aside theorder of removal, ordered re-engagement into service and posted toMehdipatnam depot on condition that she should execute an agreement onnon-judicial stamp paper worth of Rs.100/- as if she is being engagedafresh. Accordingly, the petitioner reported at Mehdipatnam depot and hasbeen discharging her duties without any remark.
4. The contention of the petitioner before this court is that she hasnot violated any rules and regulations of the respondent-corporation duringthe relevant time i.e., on 25-4-2009 but she was asked to perform doubleduty and in that process there was a little bit delay in attending the duties. In response to the instructions of the concerned Traffic Inspector sheabused herself in un-parliamentary language.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she did notabuse any of the authorities but however there is a mistake on her part touse such language even for herself but it is for the first time that has beenused. Therefore, she may be pardoned.
6. In this case, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment forremoval from service. The appellate authority with a view to afford onemore opportunity to the petitioner considered her case for re-engagementinto service. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner isentitled to the benefit of re-engagement into service with continuity ofservice for the purpose of regularization.
7. In this case, on an enquiry, it was found that there is lapse on thepart of the petitioner in using the above un-parliamentary language duringthe course of employment and in response to the instructions of theconcerned officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sheabused herself but this matter was dealt with by the Enquiry Officer holdingthat the allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved. Therefore,this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case because theappellate authority, who considered the case of the petitioner for re-engagement with a view to afford her one more opportunity. However,having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposedof at the stage of admission modifying the impugned proceedings to that ofre-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner from the date ofremoval till date with all consequential benefits including regularization onpar with her juniors but without monetary benefit. No costs.
---------------------------------------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
29-12-2011I s L
WRIT PETITION NO. 33619 OF 2011
CIRCULATION NO. 33Date:29-12-2011Court Master: I s LComputer No. 43