Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/31204/2024 of M R BABU Vs ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (APSRTC) on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31204/2024 Between: 1. M R BABU, DRIVER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD
APHC010592852024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 31204/2024
Between:
1. M R BABU, DRIVER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (APSRTC) JANGAREDDYGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.TRANSPORT CORPORATION (APSRTC) JANGAREDDYGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION APSRTC, PNBS BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.APSRTC, PNBS BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (APSRTC) JANGAREDDYGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.TRANSPORT CORPORATION (APSRTC) JANGAREDDYGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...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 to issue Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, declaring the illegal actions of the Respondents No.1 to 2 more particularly respondent No.2 removed him on 10.09.2024 in violation of serial No.5 (intoxication) more particularly serial No.5.2.1 (1st time-major-2) of Annexure-ll of the circular No.PD01/2019, Dated.01.01.2019 principles of natural justice Articles. 14 and 16 of the constitution of India is very arbitrary, illegal, unjust and set aside the impugned rejection proceedings No. PA/19(29)/2024-DPTO- ELR,dated.14.12.2024 impugned removal proceedings No. 01/209(05)72024- JRG,dated. 10.09.2024impugned suspension order No.01/209(05)/2024-JRG, dated.21.03.24 and impugned charge sheet No.01/209(05)/2024-JRG, dated.21.03.24 of respondent No.2 served on 25.03.24 and consequently to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. the date of his removal along with all its consequential monetary benefits including the salary and continuity of service from the date of 21.03.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and Pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. the date of his removal along with all its consequential monetary benefits etc., including the salary and continuity of service from the date of suspension i.e., 21.03.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.MULLAPUDI SATYANARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
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 above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings videNo.PA/19(29)/2024-DPTO-ELR, dated 14.12.2024 (Ex.P1), whereby the authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 10.09.2024.
2. Heard Sri M.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 1 & 2.
3. At the hearing, learned Standing Counsel would submit that against the order passed by the District Public Transport Officer, Eluru District vide Ex.P1, a statutory review would lie to the Executive Director, Zone-II, Vijayawada. Without availing alternative remedy, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will file a statutory review before the Executive Director, Zone-II, Vijayawada.
5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory review before the learned Executive Director, Zone-II, Vijayawada. Upon the filing of such review, the learned Executive Director, Zone-II, Vijayawada, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the Rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four (04) months. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Date : 31.12.2024 TVN
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.31204 OF 2024
Date : 31.12.2024 TVN