( 1 ) QUESTIONING the proceedings of the Regional Manager, dated 18. 11. 1997, the present writ petition is filed.

( 2 ) PETITIONER a conductor in a. P. S. R. T. C. , alleged to have driven the bus unauthorisedly on 13. 12. 1975 resulting in an accident, was removed from service. The appeal preferred by him was rejected by the Regional Manager and thereafter he preferred a Review Petition to the Chief Traffic Manager. The Chief traffic Manager, in his proceedings dated 18. 11. 1977, appointed him as a conductor afresh. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision to the 1st respondent on 6-3-1981, but his revision was rejected by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 16. 10. 1981. Aggrieved thereby he filed w. P. No. 24155 of 1996 and this Court by order dated 14. 11. 1996 held that the reasons given by the Reviewing Authority, in dismissing the Review Application, was not correct and that as a matter of fact the petitioner was dismissed from service as he was driving an A. P. S. R. T. C. Bus without any valid license. This Court directed the authority to consider the case of the petitioner on merits by looking into the entire record, within a period of two months.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the directions of this court the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 18-11-1997, upheld the order of the previewing Authority in appointing the petitioner afresh. The 2nd respondent held that the petitioner had driven the bus unauthorisedly and that the Reviewing authority was very considerate in appointing him afresh into the service of the Corporation so as to give him an opportunity to serve the Corporation by following the rules and regulations laid down by the corporation while performing his duties in future. The 2nd respondent held that, at this distant date, he did not find any valid reasons to consider the decision of the In-charge Chief Traffic Manager with regards the appointment of the petitioner as a conductor afresh. With regards the petitioner's contention that the Regulations did not permit such punishment, "of being appointed afresh, being imposed, me 2nd respondent held that the Circular dated 22. 9. 1995 was issued by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director after pronouncement of the order of the Division bench of this Court in W. A. No. 955 of 1987 reported in P. Habeeb Saheb v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation, Rep. by its Managing director, Hyderabad and others, 1995 (1)ALT 553 (DB), in which it was held that the order passed by the Reviewing Authority directing the appointment of the petitioner afresh as a Conductor cannot be treated as an order passed in modification of the punishment imposed and that the employee was not entitled to the benefits of his past service and that, in view of the latest position, the orders passed by the Reviewing authority appointing the petitioner afresh becomes valid and did not warrant any consideration at this stage.

( 4 ) SRI Shaik Ansar Khaja mynoddin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that since the appellate and the reviewing authority had failed to adhere to the statutory rules governing employees of the Corporation, and as the statutory rules did not provide for imposition of the punishment of appointment afresh as a conductor, no such punishment could have been imposed.

( 5 ) SRI T. Vinayaka Swamy, learned standing Counsel for the A. P. S. R. T. C, on the other hand, would place reliance on g. Sambasiva Rao v. A. P. State Road transport Corporation, Hyderabad, 1997 (1) ALD 451 and J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K. P. Agrawal and another, (2007) 2 SCC 433. Learned Counsel would contend that since the Reviewing Authority had held that the punishment imposed was proportionate and had directed appointment of the petitioner afresh, taking a compassionate view, it was not open to the petitioner to contend that his punishment was contrary to the statutory rules.

( 6 ) SINCE the question raised in this writ petition, whether a punishment not prescribed u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document