Telangana High Court
WP/14404/2003 of G.V.L. Narasimha Rao, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C., on 30 December 2008
H I G H C O U R T O F J U D I C A T U R E , A N D H R A P R A D E S H A T H Y D E R A B A D (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14404 of 2003 Between: G.V.L. Narasimha
INTHEHIGHCOURTANDHRAPRADESHA(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.14404 of 2003
Between:
G.V.L. Narasimha Rao, S/o. Ram Sastry,
R/o. MIG, 188/6, Housing Board Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada - 12.
..... Petitioner
AND
1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another. Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.K.UDAYASRI FORMR.G.VIDYASAGAR
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY
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.
ORDER:
At the interlocutory stage, this writ petition is taken up forhearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for theparties.
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside theproceedings dated 09.05.2000 issued by the Executive Director ofrespondent No.1-Corporation to the extent the petitioner wasreversed to the post of Security Head Guard permanently and treatingthe period between the date of his removal and reinstatement as noton duty.
The petitioner was appointed as a Watchman in respondentNo.1 in the year 1967. In the year 1975 he was promoted as SecurityHead Guard. He was further promoted to the post of SecurityAssistant Sub Inspector in the year 1998. In the year 1998, thepetitioner was entrusted with the work of verification of credentials ofone K.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Srinivasulu for the purpose of issuingdriving licence and it was found that the certificate issued by thepetitioner was bogus one. A charge was issued on 05.01.1999, onwhich date, the petitioner was promoted as Security Assistant SubInspector. Later on, the petitioner’s promotion was cancelled andenquiry was conducted. On the basis of the enquiry report, thedisciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service on22.07.1999. The said order was questioned by the petitioner inW.P.No.16894 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court by orderdated 10.04.2000, wherein the petitioner was permitted to avail theremedy of appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal, whichwas disposed of by the appellate authority by order dated 09.05.2000, wherein it has set aside the removal order and reinstatedthe petitioner by reverting him as Security Head Guard permanently. It is this order, which is assailed in this writ petition.
I have gone through the orders of the primary and appellateauthorities.
On the basis of the sound analysis of the evidence availableon record, both the authorities have concurrently found that thepetitioner issued a bogus certificate, on the basis of which drivinglicence was issued to one person by name Sri K.Venkateswarlu. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous effortsto convince this Court that the findings of both the authorities are notbased on proper evidence, I am afraid I cannot go into this issue. Inthe matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings, the scope ofjudicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limitedto examine whether the decision-making process suffered from anyillegality or the employee was denied fair and proper opportunity todefend his case before the domestic Tribunal. As no averments havebeen raised in respect of both these aspects, it is not possible for thisCourt to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its views to theviews of the domestic Tribunal.
For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality inthe order impugned in this writ petition and the writ petition isaccordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to disposal of main petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.17829of 2003 and 33609 of 2008 filed by the petitioner to fix an early dateof hearing are dismissed as infructuous.
Date: 30.12.2008va
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J