BOPPANA SATYA RAO Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHIRABAD HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in the establishment of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as Driver on 6-2-1987. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 7-9-1989 alleging that the petitioner had produced a non-genuine school certificate at the time of recruitment and that conduct of the petitioner tantamounts to misconduct as per the Conduct Regulations. The departmental enquiry was held and the petitioner was removed from service by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 13-5-1992. The petitioner instituted I.D. No. 187/92 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and he did not press that I.D. and the same was disposed of as not pressed by the order of the Labour Court dated 7-2-1994. Later on, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 14-4-1995 requesting the latter to consider his case for reinstatement as was done in respect of several other persons and the first respondent did not pass any orders on that representation. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not reinstating him into service as Driver as was done in the case of one K. AppaRao with Badge No. 12352 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Driver with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) The writ petition is misconceived. The disciplinary authority, after holding a regular departmental enquiry in terms of A.P.S.R.T.C. (CCA) Regulations imposed the penalty of removal vide its order dated 13-5-1992 on the petitioner as a disciplinary measure. The petitioner being aggrieved, by the said action of the disciplinary authority instituted I.D.No. 187/92 and if the petitioner had really any grievance against the action of the disciplinary authority, he should have pursuaded the comprehensive remedy available to him before the Labour Court. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not press that I.D. and the I.D. came to be dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now turn back and say that he should be reinstated into service. This relief cannot be granted for more than one reason. In the first instance, the order made by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner as a disciplinary measure acting under the statutory regulations - APSRTC (CCA) Regulations, has become final. As if that is not enough, the I.D. instituted against the said disciplinary proceedings was also not pressed and the same was dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner is bound by the order made by the disciplinary authority. In these proceedings, the order of the disciplinary authority is not assailed nor the order made by the Industrial Labour Court on 7-2-1994 in I.D.No. 187/92. Since those orders have become final, the petitioner, by an indirect way cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seek the relief of reinstatement.