Abdul Moiz v. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, JB Picket, Secunderabad & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. He should give in writing that the above terms and conditions are acceptable to him.” In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was given a fresh appointment. More than two years later, he filed the present writ petition assailing the order of the…
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the petitioner :
Sri K.K. Chakravarthy Counsel for the respondents: Sri K. Madhava Reddy SC for APSRTC This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6576 of 2009
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of past service for the purpose of seniority and promotion to the petitioner with arrears, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, who was a conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’), was removed from service by the disciplinary authority by order dated
28.09.2002 for his unauthorized absence. Almost four years after the said order was passed, the petitioner filed appeal to respondent No.2. The said appeal was dismissed as time barred. The petitioner then invoked the revisional jurisdiction of respondent No.1, who, by his order dated 10.10.2006, while concurring with the finding of the disciplinary authority regarding the misconduct of the petitioner, however, directed petitioner’s reinstatement, subject to the following conditions. “1. The petitioner shall be appointed into service as a fresh driver duly fixing his pay at the minimum of driver scale.
His past service will be counted for terminal benefits viz., PF, Gratuity and leave.
His seniority will be reckoned from the date he reports at the depot as a fresh driver.
He should pay fresh Security Deposit and produce valid driving licence.
The period from the date of removal till date of his reporting for duty at the Unit posted on appointment shall be treated as “Not on duty” for all purposes viz., PF, Gratuity, Leave, Increment, Promotion, Seniority etc.
He should pay back all dues viz., festival advance, if any, and produce “No due certificate” from the Depot Manager, BHEL depot.
His appointment is subject to medical fitness for the post of driver.
He should give in writing that the above terms and conditions are acceptable to him.” In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was given a fresh appointment. More than two years later, he filed the present writ petition assailing the order of the revisional authority to the extent of denying him his past service and other benefits. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel and perused the record, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve any relief in this writ petition. The disciplinary authority gave a categorical finding on the basis of the enquiry report that the petitioner unauthorisedly absented from duty causing inconvenience to the Corporation. The revisional authority concurred with this finding and found the petitioner as regularly irregular in attendance. However, purely on a sympathetic consideration and taking a lenient view, the petitioner was directed to be given a fresh appointment with minimum scale of Driver, subject to various conditions referred to above.
The Corporation is involved in rendering essential service to the general public. It is therefore necessary for it to enforce proper discipline on its employees lest public interest will suffer. The petitioner has absolutely no defence on his unauthorized absence. Therefore, he was rightly removed by the disciplinary authority. On a sheer providence, the revisional authority allowed the revision having affirmed the finding of the disciplinary authority on the misconduct of the petitioner. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the domestic tribunal, unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct by applying the doctrine of proportionality. (see Om Kumar v. Union of India [1] , Union of India and another v G.Ganayutham , Divisional [2] Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v A.T. Mane [3] , V. Ramana v APSRTC and Ram Saran v I.G. of Police, CRPF and another .) [5] [4] In the instant case, as the petitioner was found to be irregular in attending to his duties, it cannot be said that the modified order passed by respondent No.2 with the abovementioned conditions can be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
Operative part
There is another reason for my disinclination to entertain this writ petition. At every stage the petitioner had been lethargic and showed lack of diligence. He failed to participate in the enquiry proceedings. After the disciplinary authority passed order removing him from service, he kept quiet for nearly four years before filing appeal, which was rejected as time barred. Even after the revision was allowed by respondent No.2, he did not move this Court for more than two years. Therefore, the petitioner, who is not diligent in prosecuting his litigation, does not deserve any relief at this length of time. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.8596 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. Date: 30.03.2009 ES ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (1995) 6 SCC 749 (1997) 7 SCC 463 (2005) 3 SCC 254 (2005) 7 SCC 338 (2006) 2 SCC 541
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Mar 2009. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.