D.ANKINEEDU Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 dtd. 26/3/2018, 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 5/2/1999 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 respondentcorporation and the allegations levelled against him are false. Without satisfying with his reply, the 1 st respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry and submitted a report dtd. 9/2/2017 purely basing upon the preliminary enquiry report as also without recording the statements of the witnesses and concluded that the charges were proved.