Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/12518/2025 of B JAYAMMA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 15 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 12518/2025 Between: 1. B JAYAMMA, W/O. LATE SRI B. YESOBU, AGED ABOUT 51
APHC010248392025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 12518/2025
Between:
1. B JAYAMMA, W/O. LATE SRI B. YESOBU, AGED ABOUT
51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO. 28-1052- 32C2, SAIBABA NAGAR, NEAR DEVANAGAR PARK, NANDYAL
TOWN,
NANDYAL
DISTRICT
(NEW),
KURNOOL DISTRICT (OLD), A.P. - 518501
2. B. VIJAY KUMAR,, S/O. LATE SRI B. YESOBU, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO. 28- 1052-32C2, SAIBABA NAGAR, NEAR DEVANAGAR
PARK, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT (NEW), KURNOOL DISTRICT (OLD), A.P. - 518501
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS
AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2. ANDHRA
PRADESH
STATE
ROAD
TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER,
REP.
BY
ITS
CHAIRMAN
AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC, HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, NTR
ADMINISTRATION
BLOCK,
PANDIT
NEHM
BUS
STATION. VIJAYAWADA-520013.
3. THE
DEPOT
MANAGER,
KOILAKUNTLA
DEPOT,
APSRTC, KOILAKUNTLA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, KURNOOL
APSRTC, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P.
5. THE
DISTRICT
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
OFFICER,
KURNOOL, APSRTC, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL
DISTRICT, A.P.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P V RAMANA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.12518 of 2025
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:
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the issuance of disciplinary proceedings vide Charge Sheet No. 01/243(8)/22-KKL, dated 07.06.2022, Enquiry Report dated 06.07.2022, Show Cause Notice dated 05.08.2022, Orders of removing from service vide No. 01/243(8)/22- KKL dated 26.08.2022 and the Order Passed by the Appellate Authority vide PA/19(33)/2024-Dy.CTM/KNL dated 31.01.2024 and orders passed vide Proc. No. E1/756(03)/2024-KKL dated 14.03.2024 rejecting the case of 2nd Petitioner for compassionate appointment is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also being in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently declare the case of the 2nd Petitioner is entitled for Compassionate Appointment….”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to
5.
3. The writ petition is filed by the wife and son of the deceased employee of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. Initially, while the husband of the 1st petitioner was working as a Mechanic in 3rd respondent Depot, charges were framed against him on 07.06.2022. A specific charge was that based on a breath alcohol test conducted at 9:20 hours on 06.06.2022 in the garage, the reading shown as 42 mg/100 ml at 1st time and second time at 9:29 hours it shown as 46 mg. Based on the same, charges were framed and after enquiry the termination orders were passed by the 3rd respondent on 26.08.2022 with a finding that the delinquent LH has consumed alcohol and attended the depot to perform 09:00 to 18:00 hours shift duty on 06.06.2022. Accordingly, the husband of the 1st petitioner was removed from service. Challenging the same, the husband of the 1st petitioner has preferred an appeal on 02.09.2022. The said appeal was considered and rejected by the 4th respondent vide its order dated 31.01.2024 confirming the punishment order.
4. Though the enquiry was conducted and the husband of the 1st petitioner was found guilty, the fact remains that he died on 13.02.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the punishment imposed is excessive in nature, the charge was only he attended duty by consuming alcohol. But, surprisingly, by taking into consideration his past record, the respondents passed the impugned orders removing the husband of the 1st petitioner from service, which is contrary to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments.
5. Learned Standing Counsel also opposed the same based on records.
6. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased died immediately after disposal of the appeal. In the said circumstances, by taking a lenient view, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment without reference to the punishment order dated 26.08.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 16.03.2026 Ivd
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.12518 of 2025
Dated: 16.03.2026
Ivd