Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Gunji Dhanamma – Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) – Respondent
ORDER :
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“….. to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order, dt.26.04.2012 of the 3rd respondent as confirmed in 2nd respondent order, dt.15.07.2012 imposing the punishment of postponement of 2 Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect besides treating the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement as Not on Duty, as arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and APSRTC Employees CCA Regulations, 1967 to the extent the impugned order is against me by modifying the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay back salary, incremental arrears with interest @ 12% p.a. and grant costs of the proceedings….”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in APSRTC on 01.01.2010 and worked at the Addanki Depot for some time. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Chirala Depot, where she worked up to 20.10.2010, on which date she was placed under suspension. The 4th respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 20.10.2010 alleging
Disciplinary action against an employee must be based on enumerated misconduct; failure to issue correct tickets constitutes valid grounds for penalty.
The court upheld the dismissal of an employee for failure to issue tickets and misappropriation, affirming the Labour Court's adherence to the due process of law and recognizing limited grounds for j....
The court upheld that procedural irregularities in domestic enquiries do not invalidate findings if substantiated by evidence, reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review against disciplinary ac....
Point of law: punishment imposed on the petitioner by way of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the charge of closing the SR prematurely and this requires to be interfered with by....
The High Court's role under Article 226 is not to re-evaluate evidence but to ensure that disciplinary proceedings comply with established legal standards and natural justice.
Disciplinary actions must be clearly justified and charges appropriately framed; reliance on benefit of doubt requires correct application in penalties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
