APSRTC REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSHIRABAD vs. A.U.M.RAO

This   appeal   arises   from   a   judgment   and   order   dated 25   April   2013   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2012. 2. By   its   judgment,   the   Division   Bench   affirmed   the correctness of an order dated 04 September 2012 of a learned Single Judge.

The facts lie in a narrow compass.

In February, 2007, the respondent was appointed as a driver 4

A   disciplinary   enquiry   was   held   against   the   workman. Following the report of the Enquiry Officer, his services came to   be   terminated.     After   the   dismissal   of   a   departmental appeal,   and   in   the   course   of   a   departmental   review,   the Regional Manager issued an order for the re­engagement of the respondent   on   contract   on   3   February   2012. After   his   re­ engagement, the respondent invoked the juri iction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for continuity of service together with consequential service benefits.

The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that the matter was not res integra and was covered by an earlier judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 29 February 2012 in Writ   Petition   No.2786   of   2012. Though   on   behalf   of   the Corporation   an   effort   was   made   to   distinguish   the   earlier decision on the ground that in the present case a full­fledged enquiry has been held, this distinction did not find acceptance by the learned Single Judge.  On the contrary, it was held that in   the   previous   case,   the   learned   Judge   had   found   that   the enquiry   was   not   in   keeping   with   the   principles   of   natural justice.   Moreover, in the view of the Single Judge, once the Corporation   had   granted   a   largesse   in   the   form   of   a   fresh 5

It is the above order of the learned Single Judge which was affirmed by the Division Bench in a Writ Appeal.

Mr.   Gourab   Banerji,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on behalf   of   the   appellants   submits   that   there   was   a   manifest error   on   the   part   of   both   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   the Division Bench.   In the present case, a disciplinary enquiry was held against the workman after which an initial decision was taken  to  terminate  him  from service.   In  a departmental review,   he   was   granted   fresh   appointment.     Neither   the termination nor the order granting him fresh appointment as a contract driver were challenged.   As a matter of fact, it has also been submitted that in certain other cases, the workmen had taken recourse to proceedings before the Industrial Court but in the present case that was not done.  Be that as it may, the   learned   Single   Judge   relied   on   the   earlier   decision   and issued directions, to govern the entire batch of cases.   This 6

Since the order of the learned Single Judge in the present case, was exclusively based on the earlier decision dated 29 February 2012, a copy of that judgment has been placed on the record.   The judgment of the Single Judge indicates that the earlier   case   also   dealt   with   persons   who   were   working   as contract   employees   who   were   appointed   after   a   regular selection.     In   some   cases,   termination   orders   were   passed without an enquiry on allegations of misconduct while in other cases,   an   enquiry   was   conducted.     The   learned   Single   Judge, issued   the   following   directions   in   terms   as   agreed   in   that case: “(1) In   cases   where   the   appellate/revisional authority   has   directed   re­engagement   of   the contract   employees   as   fresh   employees,   such employees   shall   be   entitled   to   benefit   of continuity   of   service   from   the   date   of termination   till   the   date   of   re­engagement, except   for   the   period   during   which   they   were absent,   and   the   said   continuity   of   service granted   to   the   employees   shall   be   without   any monetary   benefit   and   shall   be   counted   only   the purpose of regularization at a future date. (2) The   continuity   of   service   so   ordered   in para (1) shall not, however, be counted for the purpose of seniority and shall not be allowed to affect   the   seniority   of   regularly   working employees   or   for   other   benefits,   but   shall   be counted only for the purpose of considering their cases for regularization. (3) There are also cases where the orders of termination   are   challenged,   either   before   the appellate/revisional   authorities   or   before   this Court,   after   six   or   seven   years   of   date   of 7

In the present case, the workman did not choose to assail either the termination of his services following the enquiry or the fresh appointment.   All that was sought was that he should have the benefit of continuity of service from the date of the earlier termination until re­engagement.

Such a direction could not have been issued by the learned Single Judge without the termination being put into question. The   grant   of   continuity   was   not   sustainable   for   the   simple reason that unless the order of termination and of the fresh 8

There is another reason why the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.   It is common ground that the appellant has recruited personnel like the present respondent on contract after a regular process of selection.  Eventually, the contract employees   are   to   be   regularised.     Granting   continuity   of service to a person such as the respondent, who was found to have committed misconduct, would place him on the same footing as   other   contractual   employees   who   have   a   record   without blemish.     Hence,   once   a   fresh   appointment   was   given   to   the respondent and neither the termination nor the fresh engagement was placed in issue, the grant of continuity of service by the High Court was manifestly misconceived.

We  may   also  note  that  the  earlier  order  of  the   learned Single Judge dated 29 February 2012 was in a batch of cases, where termination orders were issued without holding an enquiry in certain cases and after holding an enquiry in others, though in violation of the principles of natural justice.   It was in that   view   of   the   matter   that   the   direction   contained   in Clause 6 of the operative order provided that   in cases where no enquiry was conducted, the Corporation would be at liberty 9

We find a considerable degree of merit in the submission of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation that in deciding the entire batch of cases by a common order, the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the   Division   Bench unfortunately lost sight of the facts of each individual case.

For   the   above   reasons,   we   allow   this   appeal   and accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25 April   2013   of   the   Division   Bench.     The   seniority   of   the respondent workman shall be counted with effect from the date of his fresh appointment in the service of the Corporation.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Civil Appeal No.12012 of 2018 Leave granted. This appeal is also disposed of in terms of the directions in Civil Appeal No.12011 of 2018(@ SLP (CIVIL) NO.18047/2013). .............................J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)