Telangana High Court
WP/34517/2011 of B.Nariya Vs The Vice-Chairman ANDManaging Director 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. 34517 OF 2011 Between: B. Nariya … Petitioner V/s. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director APSRTC
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. 34517 OF 2011
Between:B. Nariya … Petitioner V/s.The Vice Chairman & Managing DirectorAPSRTC MusheerabadHyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri VenkateswarluCounsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Madhava Reddy SC for A.P.S.R.T.C.
The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
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 respondent-corporation.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus todeclare the action of the second respondent in terminating the petitioner’sservices through the impugned proceedings No. 02/55 (01)/2008-RNG-1,dated 04-04-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 ofthe Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently to directthe respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by continuing him asa driver in the respondent-corporation and to pass such other suitableorders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase.
3. There is no necessity of going into all the details. In similarcircumstances, this Court allowed WP.No.29322 of 2010, on 24-11-2010,whereunder the impugned order was set aside and the petitioner wasdirected to be reinstated into service forthwith, but he shall not be entitled tobe paid back wages. It shall be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, if they still feel that thesame is necessary.
4. I am of the considered opinion that as stated by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, the issue that arises for consideration in this writpetition is squarely covered by the above order in WP.No. 29322 of 2010,dated 24-11-2010. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be allowed interms of the said order.
5. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is setaside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service forthwith, but he shallnot be entitled to be paid back wages. It shall be open to the respondents toinitiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, if they still feel thatthe same is necessary. There shall be no order as to costs.
--------------------------------------
JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
CIRCULATION NO. 30Date:29-12-2011Court Master: I s LComputer No. 43