Telangana High Court
WP/33752/2010 of P.J. Khan Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep by its Managing Direcor, on 31 December 2010
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33752 of 2010 Date: December 31, 2010 Between: P.J. Khan … Petitioner And 1. The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.33752 of 2010
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.33752 of 2010
Date: December 31, 2010
Between:
P.J. Khan … Petitioner
And
1. The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents
* * *
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.33752 of 2010
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:
Heard Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counsel for theCorporation and with his consent this order is passed.
2. The writ petitioner, who is working as a driver on contract basiswith the respondent Corporation, has been disengaged on06.01.2010. When he carried the matter in appeal before the DeputyChief Traffic Manager, Kurnool Region, the same was rejected only onthe ground that it is time barred as the appeal is submitted on 18[th]June 2010 in stead of submitting it within a period of two months from06.01.2010. But the fact remains that the Corporation itself has issuedcircular instructions to all the disciplinary authorities pointing out thatthey must conduct an enquiry before terminating the contract ofengagement of the drivers. Contrary thereto the contract ofengagement of the petitioner has been terminated.
3. When a similar issue has fallen for consideration before thisCourt in W.P. No.5998 of 2009, by order dated 23.3.2009 this Court setaside the order of termination leaving it open to the respondentCorporation to conduct an enquiry if there is any misconductattributable to the petitioner and on the basis of result of the enquiry,appropriate action can be initiated against him. The said line ofreasoning has been adopted in several other cases including in W.P.No.8846 of 2010 which was disposed of on 20[th] April 2010.
4. Therefore in view of the long line of cases in which this courthas taken the view that before terminating the contract of engagementof a driver an enquiry should proceed, I am inclined to allow this writpetition and set aside the order passed on 06.01.2010 passed by theDepot Manager, Kurnool-2 Depot against the writ petitioner, leaving itopen to the third respondent to conduct an enquiry if a misconduct isattributable to the petitioner and based upon the result of the saidenquiry appropriate action be taken. It is needless to observe that thewrit petitioner would be entitled to all benefits which are extended tosimilarly placed drivers engaged on contract basis, whose orders of exparte termination have been set aside by this Court.
5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Date: December 31, 2010.BSB
________________________________
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J