ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not counting the past service of the petitioner for calculating the seniority, pensionary benefits, etc. As per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 26.03.2018, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short “the Regulations, 1967”).

2. Heard Sri M. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Security Constable in the respondent-corporation on 05.02.1999 and later, his services were regularised. While so, the 1st respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner on 24.11.2016 based on a preliminary enquiry behind the back of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is carrying out outsourcing contract works in benami names in APSRTC depots and withdrawing the salary amounts from the bank accounts of outsourcing workers duly keeping their ATM cards and passbooks with him. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted a reply to it stating that basing on an anonymous complaint, the enquiry cannot be conducted as per the circulars of the respondent- corporation and the allegations levelled against him are false. Without satisfying with his reply, the 1st respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry and submitted a report dated 09.02.2017 purely basing upon the preliminary enquiry report as also without recording the statements of the witnesses and concluded that the charges were proved.

i) The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that in pursuance of the enquiry report dated 09.02.2017, the 1st respondent imposed punishment of removal of the petitioner from service on 30.03.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent who rejected the appeal on 25.10.2017. Against which, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 3rd respondent who partly allowed the revision petition by an order dated 26.03.2018, by ordering the reinstatement of the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate.

ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry only basing upon assumptions and presumptions and purely depending upon the preliminary enquiry report which is against the principles of fair enquiry and the same is bad under law. He would further contend that there is no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to prove that the petitioner is a benami outsourcing contractor and that no worker/an outsourcing employee whose ATM cards are alleged to have been held by the petitioner, was examined as a witness to prove that the petitioner was keeping the ATM cards of the workers with him. Further, the 2nd respondent, without following the Regulations, 1967, rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The learned counsel would also contend that by the imposition of major penalty of removal from service, the petitioner lost his 18 years of service which would affect his seniority and pensionary benefits. He would contend that the impugned proceedings are against Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations, 1967. On this ground, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

iii) The learned counsel would also contend that basing on an anonymous complaint, no disciplinary action can be initiated against the employees as per Rule 6 of Central Vigilance Commission’s Guidelines (CVC guidelines) dated 29.06.1999, which envisages that no action should at all be taken on any anonymous or pseudonymous complaints and they must just be filed. Pursuant to the CVC guidelines, the respondent-corporation issued a Circular dated 23.04.2007, Rule 4 of which specifies that it is necessary to exercise more care in dealing with such anonymous petitions so that the morale of employe