M.Yalamanchi v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation And 3 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE ABHI NAND KUMAR SHAVI LI W RI T PETI TI ON No.1 3 4 6 4 of 2 0 1 9 ORDER:

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.

2.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: - "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing the impugned Order dt.13.12.2016 bearing No.PA/ 19(64)/ 2016-RM-KMM in so far reappointing the petitioner into service as a fresh painter by losing the petitioner entire service without any authority not stipulated in regulations and contrary to the TSRTC (Employees CCA) as being illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and contrary to Rules 1967 as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to grant continuity of service, attendance and other consequential benefits in view of the Judgment reported in 20075 ALD Page No 416 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Heard Mr. G. Rajesh, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II.

4.

It has been contended by the petitioner that the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the appellate authority had also confirmed the order of removal. Further aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred a review before the second respondent and the second respondent was pleased to interfere with the order of removal vide order dated 13.12.2016 and was pleased to grant the relief in favour of the petitioner directing that the petitioner be reinstated into service as painter afresh.

5.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that re-appointing the petitioner as painter afresh is contrary to the Regulations. He further contended that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in K.C.NARAYANA v . MANAGI NG DI RECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS1 and contends that the matter be remanded to the second respondent for consideration afresh with a direction to the second respondent to impose any punishment as set out in the Regulations, other than dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement. 6.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner and contends that the matter be remanded to the second respondent in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

7.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions, remands the matter to the second respondent for consideration of the petitioner's case afresh to impose any other penalty as set out in the Regulations, other than dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Regulations. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J July 3, 2019 DSK 1 2007 (5) ALD 416