THE APSRTC vs. G. KONDAL RAO

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.12243 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.7810 OF 2014)

                    J U D G M E N T M.R.SHAH, J. Leave granted. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 246 of 2013 the original respondents–corporation– employer has preferred the present appeal. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2019.01.25 16:48:25 IST Reason: 1 3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under : a. That   the   respondent   was   appointed   as   a   contract conductor   and   was   working   with   the   appellant corporation. b. That he was subjected to departmental enquiry. c. That following the report of the Enquiry Officer, his services came to be terminated.  d. That the departmental appeal also came to be rejected. e. Review petition before the Regional Manager also came to be rejected on merits. f. That thereafter straightway and  without  recourse to remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman­original   writ   petitioner   approached   the   High Court   invoking   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   under Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India   by   filing   Writ Petition No.25970 of 2012. g. That   the   learned   Single   Judge   allowed   the   petition holding   that   the   matter   was   not   res­integra   and   was covered   by   the   earlier   judgment   of   the   learned   Single 2 Judge dated 29.02.2012 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 and solely considering the decision of the learned Single   Judge   in   Writ   Petition   No.2786   of   2012   and without even considering the facts of the case, dispose of the writ petition by directing the original respondents to re­engage the petitioner in service and extend the benefit of   continuity   of   service   to   him   from   the   date   of termination till the date of his re­engagement except for the   period   during   which   he   was   absent.   This   was, however, without monetary benefit and was directed to count only for regularization. h. The   above   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   was affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal. 4.   Mr.   Gourab   Banerji,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the Division Bench has materially erred in affirming the order passed by the learned 3 Single   Judge   and   without   even   considering   the   facts   of   the individual case and that the Division Bench has not properly appreciated the fact that learned Single Judge has amicably and without   proper   application   of   the   facts   disposed   of   the   writ petition   solely   relying   upon   the   order   passed   by   the   learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012, which was not applicable at all. It is submitted in the present case   as   such   the   original   writ   petitioner   was   dismissed   from service after holding departmental enquiry and after having held the   charges   and   the   misconduct   proved   in   a   departmental enquiry.   It   is   submitted   that   the   main   judgment   and   order passed by the Division Bench affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein and having considered the main judgment and order passed by the learned Division Bench as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the learned Single Judge without having regard to the facts of the individual cases,  mechanically issued the directions exclusively relying on 4 the earlier decision dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012. However, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench both have materially erred in not appreciating the facts that in the present case the workman was dismissed from service after holding the departmental enquiry and having all the charges of misconduct   proved,   that   was   not   the   case   in   Writ   Petition No.2786 of 2012 6. We may also note that the earlier order of the learned Single Judge   dated   29.02.2012   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 to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, on the allegations of misconduct. 7.   Even   otherwise   such   a   direction   cannot   be   issued   by   the learned Single Judge without the termination being set aside. The ground of continuity was not sustainable for the simple reason that unless the order of termination is set aside, as a matter of 5 first   principle,   continuity   cannot   be   granted.     Continuity   is granted when the order of termination is set aside to ensure there is no hiatus in service.        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. 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.  6 10.   For   the   above   reason,   we   allow   the   present   appeal   and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013   in   Writ   Appeal   No.246   of   2013   as   well   as   the judgment   and   order   passed   by   learned   Single   Judge   in   Writ Petition No.25970 of 2012. No costs.     ……………………………..............................J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD) .……….…………………….............................J. ( M.R. SHAH ) New Delhi, December 07, 2018. 7