ORDER:

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order of Termination from service issued in Proc.No. E2/1(34)/2009-ZHB, dated 23.09.2009 and 2nd respondents Proc.No. PA/675 (45)/2010 -RM:MR dated 26.02.2011 is so far as not granting the continuity of service, attendant benefits, as arbitrary & unjust and consequently direct the respondents into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages.

3. The case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows:

(a) Petitioner joined the respondent’s corporation as Conductor on 14.08.2008 through due process of selection but however, the appointment of the petitioner is treated as Contract Conductor which is a violation under the provisions of APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Reg. 1966.

(b) While Working under the 3rd respondent, petitioner fell sick on the count of Chicken Gunia from 21.05.2009 and the same had been intimated to the 3rd respondent, requesting grant of leave.

(c) The Petitioner was instead issued charge sheet dated 10.06.02009 on alleged charge of absence from duties unauthorizedly from 21.05.2009 to 10.06.2009.

(d) Without granting any further opportunity to the petitioner, the final show cause notice has been issued on the petitioner and the impugned orders of termination from service by the 3rd respondent had been issued on the petitioner.

(e) Neither the Enquiry Report nor the Show Cause Notice had been served to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved, petitioner had filed an appeal before the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Sangareddy who had rejected the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 28.08.2010 and thereafter, petitioner preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent.

(f) The 2nd respondent vide order dated 26.02.2011 passed the order of re-engagement dated 26.02.2021 as afresh, due to which, the entire service of the petitioner had been forfeited, denying the continuity of service and also the other benefits. Hence the Writ Petition is filed.

4. The case of the Respondents in brief, is as follows:

(a) Writ Petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had failed to avail the alternative remedy i.e. to approach the Labour Court.

(b) Petitioner had been engaged as a Conductor in the Respondent Corporation on contract basis in the year 2008 vide proceedings dated 02.08.2008 and there had been violations of Recruitment Regulations.

(c) The petitioner while working as Traffic Inspector-2 had been terminated from service due to unauthorized absenteeism from duties from 21.05.2009 to 10.06.2009 without prior intimation or any sanction of leave causing inconvenience to travelling public and respondent corporation.

(d) Thereafter, the petitioner had been issued with the charge sheet dated 10.06.2009 which had been acknowledged by the petitioner but no explanation had been submitted.

(e) Enquiry Officer after issuing notices to the petitioner had conducted ex-parte enquiry, as the petitioner had not appeared before the Enquiry Officer and after due enquiry, petitioner had been removed from service vide proceedings dated 23.09.2009.

(f) Against the same, petitioner had preferred an Appeal which had been rejected on 28.08.2010 and thereafter the petitioner had preferred a Review Petition before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent on Humanitarian Grounds, ordered for reinstatement of petitioner into service as afresh vide orders dated 26.02.2011.

(g) Regularization of services will be done, subject to vacancies in that region and is subject to punishments and disciplinary action. The service of the petitioner had been regularized from 01.05.2014 and hence the petitioner cannot claim the relief of reinstatement of service and other benefits.

(h) The Apex Court of India in the case of APSRTC vs. AUM Rao and Others, held that