Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/28060/2026 of MUJIBUR REHIMAN SAHIB Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 30 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28060/2026 Between: 1. MUJIBUR REHIMAN SAHIB, APSRTC V AND SO ZONE-IV, KADAPA, S/O. S. IMAM SHAREEF, AGED ABOUT
APHC010514542026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 28060/2026
Between:
1. MUJIBUR REHIMAN SAHIB, APSRTC V AND SO ZONE-IV, KADAPA, S/O. S. IMAM SHAREEF, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.54-16-7/2B/1, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS ROAD, LOYOLA
GARDENS,
SENTINI
HOSPITAL,
VIJAYAWADA,
KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP-520008.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
THROUGH
THE
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT
OF
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP-522238.
2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
APPTD, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER PTD AND EX-OFFICIO
VC AND MD APSRTC, RTC HOUSE, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR
DISTRICT, PIN-520 013.
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ADMIN AND DIRECTOR V AND S, A.P.S.R.T.C., RTC
HOUSE,
PNBS,
VIJAYAWADA,
NTR
DISTRICT, AP-520013.
4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C. ZONE-IV, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT, AP-516001
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS Declaring the action of the Respondents in imposing harsh punishment of Dismissal from service Vide Proc.
No.Ea/18(01)/2025-PD, Dt.25-09-2026, is illegal, capricious, contrary to circular instructions,contrary to APSRTC regulations, violative of Art 14,16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, contrary to Rule 9(x) of AP Civil Services (CC and A) Rules, 1991, Discrimination as the other 9
employees were re-instated on the very same set of allegations, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of difference of salary from the date of Dismissal to reinstatement with all consequential benefits forthwith IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Suspend the punishment of Dismissal from service vide Proc.No.
Ea/18(01)/2025-PD,
Dt.25-09-2026
by
Directing
the
respondents to continue the Petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S M SUBHAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION No.28060 of 2026
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:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent-Authorities in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service vide Proc.No.Ea/18(01)/2025-PD, dated 25.09.2026, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the present Writ Petition is filed as the Commissioner/Respondent No.2 is not considering the appeal against the impugned order. It was further submitted that similar departmental enquiry was initiated against the 10 others out of which 09 others were imposed with a minor penalty but the Petitioner was singled out and imposed with a major penalty of dismissal from service.
3. Sri P. Venkata Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC submitted that the appeal against the impugned order lies before the Government under Rule 33 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and not to the Commissioner.
4. Heard Sri S. M. Subhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Sri P. Venkata Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.
5. After merger of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) with the State Government, amendments were brought in to the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, wherein a separate clause for Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority was provided, depending on the cadre of the officer. In the present case, as per the said Rules, the Junior Scale Officers were brought in vide G.O.Ms.No.71, G.A. (Ser-C) Department, dated 25.07.2023. As per the Appendix appended thereto, the disciplinary authorities were specified depending on the cadre of the officer.
6. In the present case, as the Petitioner is a Junior Scale Officer, the Commissioner is specified as Appellate Authority. Therefore, the objection raised by the Standing Counsel for the Respondent- Corporation appears to be unsustainable.
7. For the foregoing reasons, with the consent of both the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the following directions:-
(i) The Commissioner of APSRTC/Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the appeal filed by the Petitioner and to pass appropriate orders on merits, as expeditiously as possible.
8. No order as to costs.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date: 01.10.2026 chs
WRIT PETITION No.28060 of 2026 Dated:01.10.2026
chs