G MALLAIAH Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is employed as driver in APSRTC. A charge sheet was issued to him, on 28.1.1994, alleging that he drove the bus on 22.11.1993, in a rash and negligent manner, causing an accident, in which a pillion rider of a two-wheeler died. He was also placed under suspension on 28.1.1994. Departmental enquiry was conducted by a Committee, comprising of two officials of the APSRTC, and a report was submitted on 27.1.1994. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice, dated 1.7.1994, directing him to explain as to why the punishment of removal from service, shall not be imposed on him. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13996 of 1994. A criminal case in C.C.No.189 of 1999, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, was also pending against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was disposed of on 25.10.1995, setting aside the show-cause notice, leaving it open to the Corporation, to resume the disciplinary proceedings, after the disposal of the criminal case. The petitioner came to be reinstated on 25.10.1997.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid the full wages, from 28.01.1994 to 25.10.1997, and he seeks appropriate direction, in this regard. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the show- cause notice, dated 1.7.1994, issued by the second respondent herein was set aside by this Court, in W.P.No.13996 of 1994, and thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. He contends that once the petitioner has been reinstated into service, and no departmental proceedings ensued thereafter, the first respondent cannot withhold the salary, particularly when no specific order was passed, in relation thereto.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the departmental proceedings were not proceeded with, on account of the orders passed by this Court at various stages in W.P.No.13996 of 1994. He argues that the necessity or occasion for the respondents, to treat the period of suspension in a particular manner, would arise, if only the departmental proceedings are resumed.