REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC Vs. REGIONAL SECRETARY APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) calls in question the Award dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D. No. 45 of 2011. Thereby, the Tribunal directed restoration of the past service of the workman, P.M. Gopal, Driver (hereinafter, referred to as 'the workman'), on notional basis. He was also held entitled to monetary benefits from the date of the Award. Taking note of the fact that the workman had been reinstated in service, this Court, by interim order dated 24.07.2012, granted suspension of the impugned Award in respect of the reliefs granted by the Tribunal.

(2.) THOUGH the matter was listed for hearing before this Court on the vacate stay petition filed by the respondent Union espousing the cause of the workman, the writ petition itself is taken up as the issue raised is stated to be covered by earlier decisions of this Court.

(3.) REGULATION 8(1) of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for brevity, 'the Regulations'), sets out the penalties that may be imposed on employees. Notably, no punishment of appointment afresh is prescribed thereunder. Regulation 8(1)(vii) provides for the punishment of reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time -scale or to a lower stage in a timescale. However, this provision cannot be interpreted to include within its ambit the punishment of appointment afresh. In any event, the issue is no longer res Integra. As long back as in the year 1988, this Court in S.B. Saheb v. APSRTC (1), 1988 (2) ALT 66 (NRC) held that in exercise of power under Regulation 8(1)(vii) of the Regulations, the Disciplinary Authority cannot impose the punishment of a new appointment.