The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, passed Award dated 03.11.2011 in I.D.No.123 of 2010, whereby it set aside the proceedings dated 20.01.1999 of the Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Kurnool, and directed the APSRTC to restore M.G. Chakravarthy, Conductor, to his original post with pay on notional basis, continuity of service and attendant benefits but with monetary benefit only from the date of passing of the Award. Aggrieved thereby, the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool, is before this Court by way of the present writ petition.

On 25.07.2012, this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned Award. WVMP No.3517 of 2012 was filed by the first respondent in the writ petition to vacate the said order. However, the matter is amenable to final disposal as the issue arising herein is squarely covered by earlier decisions of this Court.

By the proceedings dated 20.01.1999, the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool, being the Reviewing Authority, directed appointment of M.G. Chakravarthy as a fresh Conductor Grade-II with pay fixation at the minimum scale. The issue is whether the Reviewing Authority had the power to direct such appointment afresh. This very question fell for decision before this Court on several occasions earlier.

In S.B. Saheb vs. APSRTC, 1988 (2) ALT 66 (NRC), this Court held that in exercise of power under Regulation 8(1)(vii) of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for brevity, ‘the Regulations’), the Disciplinary Authority could not impose the punishment of a new appointment.

A distinction was however drawn by a learned Division Bench of this Court in P. Habeeb Saheb vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad, 1995 (1) ALT 553 (DB), wherein it was held that if the order passed by the Reviewing Authority consisted of two parts - the first relating to confirmation of the order of removal and the second, relating to appointment afresh on compassionate considerations, it would not amount to modification of the order of punishment and the appointment afresh would not be by way of a punishment.

In G. Sambasiva Rao vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, 1997 (1) ALD 451, this Court was of the opinion that it would be open to the Disciplinary Authority to impose not only a penalty specified in the Regulations but also any other penalty thought adequate, provided such penalty fell within the limits of the minimum and maximum penalties enumerated in the Regulations.

However, the ratio in G. Sambasiva Rao 3 was held inapplicable to a case where the punishment imposed was that of appointment afresh in K.C. Narayana vs. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad, 2007 (5) ALD 416. Therein, this Court referred to State Bank of India vs. T.J. Paul, AIR 1999 SC 1994, which held to the effect that the Disciplinary Authority is not empowered to impose a punishment not specified in the penalties prescribed by the statutory rules.

The proceedings dated 20.01.1999 of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool, would therefore have to be examined in the light of the aforestated legal position. If the proceedings consist of two parts, one relating to confirmation of the order of removal and the other, relating to a direction for appointment as a fresh Conductor, the ratio of P. Habeeb Saheb 2 would be attracted. However, the proceedings dated 20.01.1999 do not consist of two parts. Perusal thereof reflects that the Reviewing Authority, in unequivocal terms, modified the order of punishment and the appointment afresh was not a separate action while confirming the punishment imposed. This is clear from the following extract out of the said proceedings.

“Though the order of the D.M. is justified, a lenient view is taken purely on humanitarian grounds and with a belief that he would be useful to the Corporation. The orders of the D.M. are modified as follows:

(Emphasis added)

(1) He