Sri G Sridevi

1

BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

ANANTAPURAMU.

PRESENT: Smt. G. Sridevi.

Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Court

Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 21st day of September, 2023.

F.C.O.P.No. 264/2021

Between:

S. Firodos, D/o S. Basheer Ahamad, (W/o Dr. Y. Jayaramudu), aged 28 years, Civil Assistant Surgeon, PHC, Raketla village, Uravakonda Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Petitioner And.,

Dr. Y. Jayaramudu @ Mohammad Jalal, S/o Lakshmi Narayana, aged 31 years, Praja Danta Vaidyasala, Gajananda Complex, Opp. Vegetable Market, Old Gooty Road, Guntakal Town, Anantapuramu Dist. Ananthapuramu District.

... Respondent

This petition came before this court on 11.09.2023 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M.B. Sirajuddin Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri E. Venkata Ramudu and Sri T. Gokul Kumar, Advocates for the respondent and upon hearing the counsels for the petitioner and the respondent and upon perusing the material on record and upon having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 27(1)(d)of Special

Marriage Act, 1954 praying this court to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 13.12.2017.

2. The facts of the petitioner’s case in brief are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage having been solemnized on 13.12.2017 at Anantapuramu Town. Later, the marriage was registered under Sec.15 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 with Marriage Officer, i.e. Sub Registrar, Uravakonda on 22.02.2018. The marriage is consummated and the petitioner is blessed with a son viz., Mohammad Ayan on 18.09.2021.

2

The petitioner further submits that she came from an orthodox Muslim family.

The respondent was her classmate when she was studying Intermediate at

Narayana Junior College, Anantapuramu Town in the year 2008 to 2010.

Later the petitioner did her M.B.B.S. at PES Medical College, Kuppam of

Chittoor District while the respondent did his B.D.S. at Tirupathi.

3.It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent is a Hindu by religion and he was moving closely with the petitioner even when she was studying Intermediate. When the petitioner was doing her M.B.B.S at PES

Medical College, Kuppam, the respondent used to visit her college and was proposing with her that he is in love with her and that he wanted to marry her. In the beginning, she refused for his proposal and also expressed that she came from an orthodox Muslim family and that she cannot marry a

Hindu. But the respondent repeatedly persuaded the petitioner that he will convert into Islam and that he will lead a life of a Muslim and will look after the petitioner with love and affection and that they can practice Islam after the marriage. To convince the petitioner, the respondent converted himself into Islam and voluntarily underwent circumcision (Vadugu) which is one of the primary ritual in Islam for every male. On the repeated persuasions of the respondent and due to the prolonged conduct of the respondent, the petitioner believed the respondent and accepted to marry him. The petitioner and respondent married each other in Anantapuramu town on 13.12.2017 by exchanging garlands in the presence of the friends of the respondent.

Later, the said marriage was registered with Marriage Officer cum Sub

Registrar, Uravakonda on 22.02.2018 under the provisions of Sec.15 of

Special Marriage Act, 1954. Later, the respondent converted himself into

Islam in the presence of Khazi Ibrahimn Sab and changed his name as

Mohammad Jalal and also married the respondent again as per the Muslim 3 rites and customs on 27.09.2018 at the house of Khazi Ibrahimn Sab, Ram

Nagar, Anantapurmu in the presence of elders and relatives of the petitioner and respondent and marriage is consummated.

4.The petitioner further alleged that by the time of marriage, the petitioner was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Primary Health Centre,

Krugunta village of Anantapuramu Rural Mandal and subsequently she got transfer to Primary Health Centre, Raketla village of Uravakonda Mandal. The respondent put up practice at Guntakal Town and was running a private clinic there with name and style Praja Danta Vaidyasala. After the marriage the petitioner joined the respondent and started living with him at Guntakal and was attending her duties every day by traveling in the buses. They both lived happily for few days. After two months, the respondent refused to visit

Masjid or to other prayers to Allah and also refused to practice any of the

Muslim customs. Further the respondent started insisting the petitioner to convert herself into Hinduism and insist her to lead a life of a Hindu and dress like a Hindu woman. The respondent pressurized her not to where Pardha (Gosha) and not to offer prayers (Namaz) as per Muslim customs. The respondent started proclaiming himself to be a Hindu with all his friends and relatives and also started saying that his children will also be brought up like

Hindus only.

5.It is further case of the petitioner that on number of occasions, the petitioner questioned the respondent about his promises and requested him to allow her to be a Muslim and also asked him to practice Islam as his religion. But the respondent has not cared her requests. Moreover, he insisted the petitioner to give up her religious practices and to offer prayers to Hindu gods. When the petitioner refused for the same, the respondent was 4 beating the petitioner mercilessly and harassed her. There were number of quarrels between the petitioner and respondent regarding the religion and about the future of their children. The petitioner further submits that her parents did not give any dowry at the time of marriage since it was love marriage. After the marriage, the respondent made the petitioner to transfer her Bank account to S.B.I., Guntakal branch and has taken away her Debit

Card and cheque book. The respondent used to give some meager amount every day for the bus fairs and was not providing even the minimum amenities of the petitioner and used to utilize her entire salary. Further the petitioner is a heart patient and she has to periodically undergo checkup and treatment. But the respondent was not caring to take her to hospital or to give money for her medical checkups. When the petitioner insists the respondent to take her to treatment, the respondent used to pick up a big quarrel with her and was using piercing words against her. Further he used to harass her demanding to get gold and cash as dowry from her parents and when she refused the same, he used to harass her.

6.It is further allegation of petitioner that during January, 2021 she conceived. Since then the respondent intensified his harassment and started pressing her to convert herself into Hinduism and practice as Hindu woman.

On 18.09.2021 she gave birth to a male child. Again the respondent started insisting her that their child to be brought up as a Hindu with a Hindu name for which she refused. On 24.09.2021, the parents of petitioner came to

Guntakal and took the son of the petitioner to Masjid in Guntakal town for naming ceremony and her son is named as Mohammad Ayan. On the same day, the respondent picked up a big quarrel with her and her parents for naming his as as per Muslim customs and abused them in filthy language and asked all of them to go out of his house. The respondent openly 5 proclaimed that he does not want to allow his wife and children to be Muslims and that no Muslim will be allowed into his house. Having no other option, the petitioner and her son and her parents came to Anantapuramu on 24.09.2021 and since then she is residing in her parents house. In the said circumstances, she feels that it is no longer safe to live jointly with the respondent and to lead marital life with him. The marital tie between the petitioner and respondent is irrevocably broken and it was become impossible for her to live with the respondent as his wife. Hence, the petition.

7. The respondent filed counter admitting the marriage between the petitioner and respondent and birth of a male child during their wedlock and denied remaining allegations made against him in the counter. The respondent further submitted that in fact the marriage of the petitioner and respondent is a love marriage i.e. inter-religion marriage, they both fallen in love when they studied Intermediate course is correct. The respondent is

Hindu by Yerikala caste whereas the petitioner herein belongs Muslim community. As both family members did not agree for inter-religion marriage, they got married before the Sub Registrar, Uravakonda on 22.2.2018 under

Sec.15 of Special Marriage Act, 10954. After the marriage, on the advice of the parents of petitioner, she insisted the respondent to convert into her religion for that he accepted on that her parents changed his name as

Mohammad Jalal. Prior to marriage the petitioner showed her caste feeling and further insisted him to convert completely as Muslim and as the respondent has got love and affection towards his wife and son, he voluntarily agreed all the conditions of the petitioner every time and every condition. But at the time of naming of his son, he suggested a Hindu name for the welfare and well being of his son because of his caste Yerukala in view of getting reservation, though the petitioner prior to marriage has agreed for 6 the same, but at the instance of her parents she picked up quarrel with respondent, hence the respondent willfully agreed his name as Mohammad

Ayan.

8.The respondent further submitted that taking advantage of small suggestion, the entire marital life of the respondent became hard and since then, the petitioner behaved adamantly and not allowed him even to see his son in spite of his several requests. In fact there was good understanding between the couple at the time of confirming her pregnancy, but suddenly she changed her behaviour. He never beat the petitioner as alleged by her.

Even today he has got very much love and affection towards his wife and son and he is ready and willing to get back the petitioner to live happy and amicable marital life. There is no cause of action to file this unjust petition.

The petitioner is not maintainable as the respondent has no such intention for dissolving the marriage. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the petition.

9. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and

Exs.A.1 the A.4. were marked. The father of PW.1 is examined as PW.2.

Ex.A.1 is Certified copy of marriage certificate issued by Marriage Officer,

Uravakonda. Ex.A.2 is Original copy of Nikhanama given by Khazi. Ex.A.3 is

Translation copy of Nikhanama. Ex.A.4 is Marriage photos of the petitioner and the respondent two in number.

The respondent himself examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

10.Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent.

11. Point for determination is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce

by dissolving her marriage with respondent?

7

POINT:

12.It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and the respondent are the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 13/12/2017 at

Ananthapuramu town by exchanging garlands in the presence of the friends of the respondent. Later they registered their marriage with the Marriage

Officer-cum-Sub-Registrar, Uravakonda on 22/2/2018 under the provisions of

Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

13.It is evident that the petitioner filed the petition for divorce under

Section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act on the ground of Cruelty. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent belongs to the Hindu religion and she belongs to the Islam religion and they were classmates in Intermediate and from then the respondent used to propose her to marry him. Accordingly, he promised her that he will convert into Islam religion and lead life like a

Muslim and accordingly he voluntarily underwent circumcision. Their marriage was opposed by both side parents. Therefore they married in the presence of their friends and subsequently got registered the same under

Special Marriage Act.

The petitioner further contended that they lived happily for a while, thereafter the respondent refused to visit masjid and stopped offering prayers to Allah. Moreover he refused to practice any of the Islamic Customs.

Furthermore the respondent pressurized the petitioner to convert herself into

Hinduism and insisted her to lead life like a Hindu woman. Further the respondent and his relatives harassed her for want of dowry and when she refused the same the respondent had beat her mercilessly and did not allow her to practice Islamic rituals and customs such as offering namaz. On many an occasions the petitioner prayed the respondent to change his attitude but he further intensified harassment towards her.

8

She is vexed with the attitude of the respondent and there is no possibility for the re-union between them for the reason, she has an apprehension, that the respondent will harm and injure her both physical and psychological. Therefore the petitioner contended that it is unsafe for her to live with respondent and accordingly prayed for dissolution of marriage with the respondent.

14.Per contra the respondent contended that the petitioner at the influence of her parents and relatives filed this divorce petition with all false allegations especially he never beat the petitioner nor he or his relatives demanded the dowry from the petitioner or her parents. He further contended that he only suggested that their son to be named as Hindu which will be beneficial for their son as he belonged to Yerukula Scheduled Tribe caste. Whereas, the petitioner at the instance of her parents picked up quarrel with him for no fault of his. Even after all this ill-treatment in the hands of the petitioner with much respect to the matrimonial tie and love, affection towards the petitioner, as well as for the sake of his child’s future, finally he prayed this court to dismiss this petition.

15.The Special Marriage Act 1954 is not concerned with the religion of the parties to an intended marriage. Any person, whichever religion he or she professes, may marry under its provisions either within his or her community or in a community other than his or her own, provided that the intended marriage in either case is in accord with the conditions for marriage laid down in this Act, more particularly under Section 4.

Section 4: There are certain conditions laid down in Section 4 of the

Act:

9

It says that neither of the parties should have a spouse living.



Both the parties should be capable of giving consent; should be sane at the time of marriage.



The parties shall not be within the prohibited degree of relations as prescribed under their law.



While considering the age, the male must be at least 21 and the female be 18 at least.

Section 27 in the Special Marriage Act, 1954

Section 27. Divorce.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made there under, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district court either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent-

(a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or

(b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

(c) is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for seven years or more for an offence as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 );

(d) has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(a) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

Explanation.- In this clause,-

(b) the expression" mental disorder" means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;

(e) the expression" psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the respondent, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or 10

(f) has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or.

(g) has been suffering from leprosy, the disease not having been contacted from the petitioner; or

(h) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of the respondent if the respondent had been alive;

Explanation.- In this sub- section, the expression" desertion" means desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly; (1A) A wife may also present a petition for divorce to the district court on the ground,-

(i) that her husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality;

(ii) that in a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956 ), or in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 ), (or under the corresponding section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ) (5 of 1898 ), a decree or order, as the case may be, has been passed against the husband awarding maintenance to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that since the passing of such decree or order, cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or upwards.] (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made there under, either party to a marriage, whether solemnized

before or after the commencement of the Special Marriage

(Amendment) Act, 1970 , (29 of 1970 ) may present a petition for divorce to the district court on the ground- (i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or

(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.

16.As the charge of cruelty is with the direct knowledge of the complaining spouses, law requires that averments in relation to this charge must be 11 specific, concise and clear. Vagueness or ambiguity in the allegations of cruelty is likely to be viewed with dis-favor. The burden of proving cruelty lies on the petitioner, but, it need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and it may be proved by way of probable circumstances.

17.Before going to the further merits of the case it would be beneficial to discuss ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samar Ghosh Vs,.

Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC, 511 in para 101 at pages 546 and 547

wherein it is held that:

“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behavior which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would be not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a decree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of 12 conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(xi) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the Bearing in mind above principles of law enunciated by Hon'ble apex Court, I shall examine the evidence adduced by both parties in this petition. married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the facts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage, on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situation, if may lead to mental cruelty.” 18.In a Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Suman Singh Vs, Sanjay

Singh, Civil Appeal No. 7114 , 7115 of 2014 judgment, dated : 08/03/2017 reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 215, discussed ration laid down in Samar

Ghosh Case referred supra and held that general allegations of cruelty 13 without any proof of the same cannot be ground to grant divorce and dismissed the divorce petition filed by the husband.

Bearing in mind above principles of law enunciated by Hon'ble Apex

Court with regard to mental cruelty, this court shall examine the evidence adduced by both parties in this petition.

Coming to the oral testimony of petitioner as PW.1, she deposed

during her cross-examination that:

“It is true that after our marriage and till the naming ceremony of my son, I was with the respondent. It is not true to suggest that there were no disputes between myself and the respondent till the birth of my son. Witness adds that there were disputes between them as the respondent promised to convert into Mohammedan religion.” “It is true that the respondent got knowledge about my heart problem.” “It is true that prior to our marriage a vadugu (circumcision) function was performed for the respondent showing his conversion to Mohammedan religion.” “It is true that the respondent attended the said circumcision surgery on love and affection towards me and also with affection on the religion.” “It is true that no family member from my family side attended me at that time.” “It is true that the respondent attended me at that time. Witness adds that even though he attended but there was no satisfaction to her at that time from his side.” “By my pressure the respondent observed fastings other than Ramzan.” “It is not true to suggest that I got love affection towards the respondent. Witness adds that initially she got love and affection towards the respondent but now she is not having any love and affection on the respondent.” “It is true that I was affected from corona. It is true that my parents also did not attend me at that time. It is true that the respondent attended me at that time. Witness adds that the respondent was also affected with Covid as such we both attended each other.” “It is true that myself and the respondent filed Writ petition before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh for regularization of 14 my post. It is true that the respondent attended to pursue the said writ petition. Witness adds that on her pressure he attended the same.” “It is true that I did not lodge any report against the respondent for the alleged harassment. Witness adds that even she did not intimate the same to her parents also. I did not intimate the same to the parents of the respondent also except disclosing the same to my advocate.” “It is true that after completion of the naming ceremony I returned to my parent’s house.”

19. PW.2, who is none other than the father of PW.1, deposed that:

“The petitioner is my 2 nd daughter. I do not know where their marriage was performed. On knowing their marriage, I made a requisition to the Registrar concerned to stop their marriage either in the year 2017 or in 2018.” “I do not know anything about circumcision (vadugu). I do not know whether my affidavit reflects that I have no objection to accept the respondent when he consents for circumcision. I do not know when the process of circumcision was completed whether it is prior to marriage or after the marriage.” “I came to know that both the petitioner and the respondent put up their family in Guntakal.” “I do not know where the petitioner was doing employment at the time of their marriage.” “I do not know from which period to which period she shuttled to attend her job from Guntakal to Raketla. The petitioner stayed with the respondent till her pregnancy.” “I did not approach the respondent to persuade him not to harass the petitioner for conversion from Mohammedanism to Hinduism. I did not lodge any report against the respondent for his harassment to the petitioner being an employee.” “I do not know whether the respondent financially assisted to the petitioner when she approached the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh for filing a writ petition praying to regularize her employment. I never assisted the petitioner financially at that time.” “I do not know the names of the relatives of the respondent who were harassing the petitioner for gold and additional dowry. I did not lodge any report against the respondent at that time on hearing the same.” “I have no objection to the petitioner if she is willing to join the respondent along with their son.” 15

20. Coming to the oral testimony of respondent as RW.1, he deposed during his cross-examination that:

“The marriage performed according to Hindu rites at my village and on the date of my marriage I was Hindu and the petitioner is Muslim.” “It is true that as on the date of marriage, the petitioner is working in a government sector under contract basis as a M.B.B.S, Doctor and I completed my B.D.S. and started my practice as a Dentist.” “It is not true to suggest that I threatened the petitioner that I will committed suicide if she won’t agree for love proposal.” “My marriage with the petitioner was registered under Special Marriage Act on 22.02.2018 at Uravakonda.” “It is not true to suggest that after crediting the salary of the petitioner, I transferred her salary to my account and I am giving meager amounts to the petitioner for her expenses.” “It is not true to suggest that I instructed the petitioner to follow the Hindu customs to the children.” “It is not true to suggest that I beat the petitioner when she committed mistake while doing house hold duties.” “The naming ceremony of my child was performed at Mastha vali Darga, Guntakal on 24.09.2021. It is not true to suggest that I took a galata in that ceremony and necked out the petitioner from my house.” “It is true that after filing of this petition I went twice to the hospital where the petitioner is working. Witness adds that he went to the hospital to see his child and requested the staff for his child.” “It is not true to suggest that in that circumstances I took up quarrel with the petitioner at her chamber and locked the door by keeping her in side.” “It is not true to suggest that I trapped the petitioner for her money and status. I am ready to take my wife i.e. petitioner and my child to lead happy life.”

21. On careful analysis of oral testimony of PW.1, it goes to show that she stayed with the respondent till naming ceremony of their son, though she deposed that she had disputes with the respondent during her stay with the 16 respondent. Strangely, she admitted that she had dispute with the respondent with regard to the conversion of the respondent into Islamic religion. She categorically deposed that the respondent had knowledge about her cardiac issue. To the most surprising of this court PW.1 categorically admitted that the respondent gone through the process of the circumcision as mark of his conversion to the Islamic religion, which is contrary to her previous version that the respondent showed reluctance for acceptance to

Islam religion. Moreover, she categorically admitted that the respondent attended the said circumcision surgery as a mark of to show and express his love and affection towards her and so also with affection on the Islam religion. During her cross-examination she made a strange admission that none of her family members attended the said circumcision ritual. Further,

PW.1 admitted that when she was admitted in the Baptist Hospital, Bangalore for surgery with regard to abortion procedure and where the respondent only attended her and no one from her family attended her, so also the respondent attended her when she was affected with Covid-19 infection and none of her family members attended her.

22.She categorically admitted that the respondent only attended and pursued the writ petition filed before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh for regularisation of her post and the same was also admitted by PW.2 (father of the petitioner) that he never assisted petitioner financially during her stay with the respondent. To the most surprising of this court PW.1 categorically admitted that she did not lodge any report against the respondent for the alleged harassment, so also she did not intimate the same to her parents nor to the parents of the respondent, moreover she disclosed the same i.e., alleged harassment for the first time before her advocate. It can be safely concluded through her admission that the alleged incident of harassment 17 towards her by the respondent was much concocted for the purpose of this petition only at the office of the advocate concerned.

23.Coming to the oral testimony of PW.2, it is crystal clear that he had no personal knowledge of the family affairs happened in between the petitioner and the respondent during her stay with the respondent, more particularly when their marriage was performed, about circumcision ritual, whether the petitioner was employed at the time of her marriage, where the petitioner stayed with the respondent etc. To the most surprising of this court, PW.2 categorically admitted that he never approached the respondent so as to pursue him with regard to the alleged harassment against the petitioner, more particularly with regard to the conversion of the petitioner from Islamic to Hinduism religion. Though it was the contention of the PW.2 that he came to know the alleged harassment through the petitioner, but strangely he deposed that he did not lodge any report against the respondent for such harassment towards petitioner. Furthermore, PW.2 deposed that he did not know the names of the relatives of the respondent who harassed the petitioner for demand of gold and dowry and even he also did not lodge any report against the respondent for the same. Strangely, coming to the end of his oral testimony, he categorically deposed that he has no objection if the petitioner joins the respondent along with her son.

24. On careful analysis of oral testimony of RW.1 goes to show that their marriage was love marriage, where he belongs to Hindu religion and the petitioner belongs to Islam religion. Both the petitioner and respondent are medical practitioners, wherein petitioner is M.B.B.S. doctor and the respondent practicing as Dentist. RW.1 denied to the suggestion that he threatened the petitioner that he will commit suicide if she won’t accept his 18 love proposal. Furthermore RW.1 categorically denied to the suggestion that he used to transfer the salary of the petitioner into his account and in turn he used to give only meagre amounts to the petitioner, which is sufficient only to meet her minimum expenses like travelling from Guntakal to Rakrtla. It is evident from the oral testimony of RW.1 that he never forced or pressurized the petitioner to follow the Hindu customs nor to the child and moreover he never beat the petitioner for trivial issues while attending household duties. It is further evident that RW.1 categorically deposed that he never picked up quarrel with the relatives of the petitioner during the naming ceremony of their child and consequently he never necked out the petitioner from his house. Moreover, he deposed that he visited twice the hospital where the petitioner is working so as to visit his child and there he never picked up a quarrel nor he locked petitioner inside her chamber. Finally, he deposed that he never trapped the petitioner for her money and status. He lastly deposed that he is ready and willing to take the petitioner and his child to lead happy matrimonial life.

25.Admittedly petitioner has not placed any document to support her contention that she was physically assaulted by the respondent. It is evident that she did not lodge any report before police with regard to the alleged incident of harassment towards her by the respondent. Moreover, no medical certificate or record is filed by the petitioner to show that she was beaten by the respondent black and blue as stated by her in her petition averments and chief-examination evidence. Furthermore, she admitted that even she did not intimate the same to her parents or to the parents of the respondent. When the petition is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, it is for her to prove the alleged cruelty on the part of the respondent towards her in specific. She categorically stated that there was no dispute 19 between herself and respondent till with regard to naming ceremony of their child which is contra to the version stated by the petitioner in her petition.

26.It appears from the evidence available on record that disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent is only due to petty issues which itself shows that there were no serious misunderstandings between them and it also appears that some misunderstandings took place between them with regard to the naming of their child and conversion of the respondent into

Islam religion.

27.Further this court is of opinion that the personal law applicable must be used to determine the marriage’s legitimacy when it is not subject to any statutory laws. Furthermore, it concluded that the parties marriage other than marriage under Special Marriage Act is invalid. In such case, the partners’ legal marriage was the one that was solemnized in accordance with the Special Marriage Act of 1954. This court further opined that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 13/12/2017 at

Ananthapuramu town by exchanging garlands and also the marriage as per the Muslim rites and customs on 27.09.2018 are invalid and that the Special

Marriage Act of 1954’s provisions would govern any sequence marriages.

28.However both sides elders have failed to convince both parties to lead happy marital life. The averments mentioned in her petition that itself is not a ground to come to conclusion that petitioner has proved mental and physical cruelty on the part of the respondent.

29.The alleged acts of the respondent on the part of the petitioner deposed as PW1 and stated in the petition averments, for arguments sake 20 even taken to be true, it would not comes within the purview of mental cruelty as per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samar Ghosh case referred supra. When the alleged incident said to have been taken place between the parties at the site of naming of their child is eschewed from consideration due to lack of any convincing evidence, the remaining allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent is petty in nature as rightly contented by RW.1 during his arguments.

30.This court is of an opinion that still there is scope for reconciliation between the parties and both parties shall consider to lead happy marital life at least for the sake of their child born to them and his future. In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samar Ghosh case referred supra, this court is of an opinion that petitioner failed to prove any mental or physical cruelty on the part of the respondent for seeking divorce on that ground. Accordingly, this point is answered.

31.In the result, petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, this court directs both parties shall bear their own costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of September, 2023.

Sd/- G. SRIDEVI

Judge, Family Court–cum-

VII Addl. District Court,

Anantapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner:- Respondent:

PW.1 : S. Firdos, RW.1 : Y. Jayaramudu.

PW.2 : S. Basgheer Ahamad.

21

Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner

Ex.A.1Certified copy of marriage certificate issued by Marriage Officer, Uravakonda.

Ex.A.2 Original copy of Nikhanama given by Khazi.

Ex.A.3Translation copy of Nikhanama.

Ex.A.4Marriage photos of the petitioner and the respondent three in number.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondent

- Nil -

Sd/- G. SRIDEVI

Judge, Family Court–cum-

VII Addl. District Court,

Anantapuramu.

1

APAN000034002023

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-cum-LABOUR COURT, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt G.Sridevi, Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

THURSDAY THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

I.D.No.17/2023

Between: D.Nagendra, Aged 43 years, S/o D.Pullaiah, D.No.7/4101, Sreenivasanagar, Proddatur, Kadapa District-516 360. … Petitioner

AND

1) The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Proddatur depot, Kadapa District.

2) The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C,

Kadapa, Kadapa District. ... Respondents

This Industrial Dispute coming on 15-12-2025 before this Tribunal in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri S.Chandrasekhara, Law Officer of the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

2

A W A R D

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the

Respondents and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Sec. 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2)Pursuant of filing of Industrial Dispute by the Petitioner, notice sent to the

Respondents. The Petitioner made his appearance through his counsel and submitted a claim statement. The brief averments in the claim statement are that the Petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Respondent Corporation in the year 2007 and his services were regularized in the year 2011. From the date of joining the Petitioner was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors.

3)While that was so, a charge sheet was issued against the Petitioner by the

Depot Manager, Proddatur Depot with the following charges.

i.For having unauthorizedly transportation of E.732 different size Liquor Bottles in different brands mentioned in the statement of allegation through E.8 bags in the service bus, while on duty coming from Bangalore to Proddatur with vehicle No.AP04-Z- 0318 on 08.07.2021 which shows your gross negligent and careless attitude in your duties and you have tarnished the image of corporation before he travelling public, which is serious offence and constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963”.

ii.For having violated the standard instructions communicated by the corporation from in time to time on bringing the liquor bottles, while performing the duty of Bangalore to Proddatur with vehicle No.AP04Z 0318 on 08.07.2021 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963”.

iii.For having bring the prohibited items i.e., E.732 different size liquor bottles in different brands mentioned in the statement of allegation through E.8 bags in the bus, while on duty coming from Bangalore to Proddatur with vehicle No.AP04Z 0318 on 08.07.2021 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28

(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963”.

3

4)On 08.07.2021 while the Petitioner was performing the bus bearing

No.AP04Z0318, at Race Course, a person stopped the bus and told that due to

Covid-19 his son vacated the room and requested to allow the luggage containing books. In order to avoid traffic jam Petitioner had not check the luggage and allowed the luggage and the luggage passenger travelled in the bus, during check the person who put the luggage escaped even after search, the said person was not found. In the circumstances, the Petitioner has not committed any misconduct.

The Petitioner had not opted for TIM service and he was not given training for TIM services. The authorities forcibly directed him to perform TIM service Conductor duties. The minimum qualification for the post of Conductor is 10th class and the

Petitioner has no Conductor’s license. No person shall act as a Conductor unless he holds the license under section 29(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Petitioner is not qualified for the post of Conductor as the Petitioner studied 8th class. The duties and responsibilities of the Driver and conductors are separate under the provisions of above said Act. The Petitioner do not possess first aid training, as the

Petitioner was not given the said training by the Respondent Corporation. The

Petitioner was not given the 3 days training in operation of issue of tickets through ticket issuing machine or through other means by the Respondent corporation

5)The duties of the Petitioner are manual and technical. The Petitioner has no supervisory, managerial functions or duties. The Petitioner is a workman as defined under Sec.2(S) of the I.D Act. The Corporation of A.P.S.R.T.C is merged in

Government of A.P from 01.01.2020. The A.P Public Transport Department (Transport, road & Buildings) (TR-II) is an Industry as defined under sec.2(J) of the

I.D Act.

6)A farse of an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry is illegal, invalid and arbitrary. The enquiry officer had violated the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer failed to take into consideration the material on record. The enquiry is liable to be held as invalid. The Depot Manager without seeing the material on record, passed the illegal invalid, unjust and arbitrary removal order against the 4

Petitioner. The punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate. Appeals made to the higher authorities have become unfruitful.

7)The criminal case filed against the Petitioner vide C.C No.1190/2022 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur ended in acquittal. The removal order is liable to be set aside. The Petitioner is a poor man and he is surviving with wife and two children. The Petitioner has no other source of income except earnings from his job.

8)The removal order passed by the 1st Respondent against the Petitioner in

Proceedings No.E3/118(1)/2021-PDTR, dt.10.01.2022 is unjust and illegal and requested to set aside the said removal order and orders of appellate authorities and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages with all other attendant benefits.

9)The Respondents has filed Counter denying all the allegations made in the

Claim Statement except those which are specifically admitted in their Counter. The

Petitioner was appointed as a Contract Driver on 03.04.2007 and subsequently his services were regularized on 01.12.2011 and if the Petitioner is in service his date of retirement will be 30.06.2041. On earlier occasion the Petitioner was removed from service on the allegation of absenteeism. In the present case Petitioner involved in unauthorized transportation of 732 liquor bottles i.e., each 597 Silver

Cup VSOP brand, each 59 silver Cup and each 76 Old Admiral brands of VSOP through each 08 bags while performing duty from Bangalore to Proddatur on 08.07.2021 while the Petitioner driving the bus and the said bus was checked by the SEB Inspector at Kodikonda check post and found above mentioned 732 liquor bottles. Transportation of liquor bottles in the service bus is a serious offence and a police case was registered at Hindupur vide FIR No.07/2021. Basing on the report, the Disciplinary Authority issued charge sheet against the Petitioner on 12.08.2021 and the Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet. In order to provide further opportunity to the Petitioner a domestic enquiry was ordered by nominating 5

Assistant Manager, R.M’s office, Kadapa and the said enquiry officer after conducting domestic enquiry submitted enquiry report.

10)During the domestic enquiry statements of concerned were recorded in the presence of the Petitioner. A fair and proper enquiry was conducted in accordance with the CC & A Regulations duly following principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer submitted report holding that the charges levelled against the

Petitioner were held proved. Basing on the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice of removal from service vide Notice No.E3/118(01)/2021-

PDTR dated 24.12.2021. The Petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice of removal from service. Later the Disciplinary Authority issued removal proceedings No.E3/118(01)/2021-PDTR dated 10.01.2022. Upon the removal order

Petitioner preferred appeal before the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Kadapa and the same is rejected vide proceedings dated 11.03.2022. The Petitioner preferred appeal before the Regional Manager, Kadapa and the same also rejected vide proceedings dated 31.03.2022. Latter, Petitioner preferred appeal before the

Executive Director, Kadapa zone and the same is also rejected vide proceedings

dated 21.07.2022. The action taken by the disciplinary authority and the appellate

authorities are just and requested to up hold the removal order.

11)The Respondent filed additional Counter and reiterated the counter contents, so they are not repeated. The concise contends in the additional counter are that the APSRTC introduced TIMs in the year 2000. Motor Vehicles – Amendment to

A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by incorporating a new Rule 72A, the drivers of stage carriages performing the functions of Conductors shall exempt from possession of conductor’s license required under Sub Sec.(1) of section 29 of the

Act. The minimum qualification for the post of Conductor is 10th class. The minimum qualification for the Driver’s post is 8th pass. The Petitioner/Driver was utilized as TIM driver vide Transport Department – Motor Vehicles – Amendment to

Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by incorporating a new Rule 72A. The

Petitioner allowed 8 bags consisting 732 liquor bottles into bus which is prohibited luggage unauthorizedly with ulterior motive. The bus was ceased for 2 days and the 6 passengers traveled in bus were suffered with the misconduct of the Petitioner and requested to dismiss the Claim Petition.

12)During the course of enquiry, learned counsel for the Petitioner filed a Memo stating that Petitioner is not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry procedurally and further requested to reappraise the evidence on record and adjudicate the dispute as per section 11(A) of the I.D Act 1947. The said Memo is recorded.

13)Both sides have not adduced any oral evidence. Ex.W-1 to Ex.W.4 were marked on Petitioner’s side. On behalf of the Respondents Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-22 were marked.

14)Heard arguments of the Petitioner. The Law Officer for the Respondents filed written arguments.

15)Now the points that arise for consideration is; i.Whether the impugned order Progs. No.E3/118(1)/2021-

PDTR Dt.10.01.2022 passed by the 1 st Respondent and

subsequent orders as confirmed by the other

Respondents are legal, valid and sustainable in law or on

facts or it requires any interference by setting aside the

impugned orders by way of reinstating the Workman with

continuity of service with full back-wages and attendant

benefits?

ii.If so, to what result?

POINTS No.i & ii:

16)It is the case of REMOVAL of the Petitioner from the service vide

Proceedings No. E3/118(1)/2021-PDTR dated 10.01.2022 as the petitioner involved in UNAUTHORIZED transportation of different liquor bottles in different brands.

17)The case of the Petitioner in brief is that on 08-07-2021, while he was performing Bangalore to Proddatur duty with bus bearing No.AP-04-Z-0318, near 7

Race Course one person stopped the bus and told due to Covid-19, his son vacated the room and requested to allow the luggage containing the books and by considering his request, due to traffic jam, the Petitioner could not check. But at the time of checking the bus, the luggage belonging person who travelled in the bus was escaped. The petitioner further averred that he was not involved in the said case. The police have foisted false case against the Petitioner. The criminal case filed against the Petitioner vide CC. No.1190/2022 on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Hindupaur ended in acquittal on merits. Under those

circumstances, the Petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet much less under APSRTC conduct regulations. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is excessive and that the removal of the

Petitioner from service is unjust and disproportionate and requested to set aside the removal order and reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service with all benefits.

18)Per contra, Per contra, the Respondent filed counter by admitting the appointment of Petitioner as Contract Driver in the Respondent Corporation on 03.04.2007 and subsequently his services were regularized w.e.f 01.12.2011 and the date of retirement of the Petitioner is 30.06.2041. The services of the Petitioner was removed from service by the Respondent Corporation on 10-01-2022 for having involved in Unauthorized transportation of of different liquor bottles in different brands. A police case was registered at Hindupur Police Station vide FIR

No.07/2021 under Sec. 34 (a) (I) of AP Excise Act, 1968. After through departmental enquiry, the 1strespondent passed Removalorder No.

E3/118(1)/2021-PDTR dated 10.01.2022 and confirmed by Appellate Authorities is just and prayed to dismiss the Petition.

19)On perusal of Ex.M.3, one Smt. K.Anuradha – RC-413218 of Proddatur

Depot gave statement to the Head Constable, APSRTC, Proddatur Depot stating that on 08-07-2021, while she was performing the duties, in between 16:00 hrs., to 00:00 hrs, the SEB Personals came and asked about Sri M.N.Swami – Driver, 8 413481 and after the said driver came, the SEB Personals took him to Excise

Police station for enquiry.

20)The Head Constable, APSRTC, Proddatur on 09-07-2021 reported to Depot

Manager, APSRTC, Proddatur Depot under Ex.M.4 stating that Circle Inspector and

Sub-Inspector of SEB Police stated that they found Liquor bottles in the bus at

Korukunta Check Post and the driver by name D.Nagendra (petitioner) informed the name of the M.N. Swami – Driver and after he arrived from duty, the SEB Police took M.N.Swami, Driver to Excise Police Station for enquiry. The said Constable also informed that the SEB Police took the custody of the Petitioner and one Akula

Subbaiah and registered a First Information Report in a case in Cr. No.162/2021 under Sec. 32 (a) (I) of AP Excise Act.

21)The Asst. Manager (T), Proddatur submitted a Preliminary enquiry report, dt.

05-08-2021 (Ex.M.5) to Depot Manager, Proddatur stating the same facts and the

Depot Manager initiated Asst. Manager to conduct enquiry and submit report.

22)Basing on the allegation, the 1st respondent framed Charge-sheet vide

No.E3/118(08)/2021-PDTR, dt. 12-08-2021 under Ex.M.6 three charges against the petitioner as follows:

i.For having unauthorizedly transportation of E.732 different size Liquor Bottles in different brands mentioned in the statement of allegation through E.8 bags in the service bus, while on duty coming from Bangalore to Proddatur with vehicle No.AP04-Z- 0318 on 08.07.2021 which shows your gross negligent and careless attitude in your duties and you have tarnished the image of corporation before he travelling public, which is serious offence and constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963”.

ii.For having violated the standard instructions communicated by the corporation from in time to time on bringing the liquor bottles, while performing the duty of Bangalore to Proddatur with vehicle No.AP04Z 0318 on 08.07.2021 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963”.

9 iii.For having bring the prohibited items i.e., E.732 different size liquor bottles in different brands mentioned in the statement of allegation through E.8 bags in the bus, while on duty coming from Bangalore to Proddatur with vehicle No.AP04Z 0318 on 08.07.2021 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28

(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963”.

23)The 1st Respondent call for the explanation of the Petitioner for the alleged charges and issued SUSPENSION ORDER. The Petitioner submitted his explanation under Ex.M.8 to the Charges framed against him to the 1st Respondent on 17-08-2021. Wherein the Petitioner in his explanation alleged that he never involved in the said unauthorized transportation of liquor bottles and when he reached Race Course Bus Stop, by hearing the words of one passenger, he allowed the luggage into the bus and he do not know what was the said luggage and the owner of the luggage was surrender before the police. The Petitioner requested the Authority to consider that bail was granted him. Further the Petitioner requested the Authority to consider his explanation and drop the charges framed against him and re-instate him into service.

24)It is the case that the SEB Police registered a case against the petitioner and one AKULA SUBBAIAH (A2 in Criminal Case), who is one of the Passenger. The said Akula Subbaiah gave his statement on 19-08-2021 under Ex.M.9. In the statement under Ex.M.9, the said passenger categorically stated that the petitioner is no way concerned with the unauthorized transportation of liquor bottles and he do not know anything about the liquor bottles in the bags.

25)In order to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner, the case was entrusted to the Assistant Manager (Enquiries), Regional Manager’s Office, Kadapa for conducting domestic enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer considered the following documents, mainly:

1.Report of Head Constable

2.Report of RC

3.Petitioner’s Star Document No.140674

4.Photocopies of the photographs 10

5.Particulars of liquor bottles

6.News Paper clipping;

7.F.I.R. Copy

8.TIM Tickets

9.Report of Superintendent (T), Proddatur

10.Statement of Smt. Subbamma, Supt. (T)

11.Preliminary report of Asst. Manager (T)

12.Allegation report against the petitioner

13.Explanation of the petitioner’

14.Statement of Smt. Subbamma, Supt (T) during enquiry

15.Statement of Smt. Lavanya, Asst. Manager (T), Proddatur, and

16.Statement of the petitioner during enquiry.

26)The Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence available on record, submitted

Ex.M.11 DOMESTIC ENQUIRY REPORT, dt.12.11.2021 to the 1st Respondent holding that the charge leveled against the Petitioner is proved.

27)The 1st Respondent call for the remarks from the Petitioner and issued

Ex.M.12 proceedings vide Case No.E3/118(01)/2021-PDTR, Dt. 30-11-2021. The

Petitioner acknowledged the same and submitted his explanation under Ex.M.13, dt.10-12-2021. Without considering the explanation, the 1st respondent issued

Ex.M.14 show-cause notice, dt.24-12-2021. The petitioner acknowledged Show cause notice under Ex.M15 and submitted his explanation.

28)On perusal of Ex.M.16 explanation by the Petitioner, wherein he categorically stated he never involved in the said unauthorized transportation of liquor bottles and when he reached Race Course Bus Stop, on hearing the words of one passenger, he allowed the luggage into the bus and he do not know what was in the said luggage and the owner of the luggage was surrender before the police.

The Petitioner requested the Authority to consider that bail was granted him.

11

Further the Petitioner requested the Authority to consider his explanation and drop the charges framed against him and re-instate him into service.

29)Without considering the explanation, the 1st respondent passed Ex.A.17

Removal Proceedings vide No.E3/118(1)/2021-PDTR, dt.10-01-2022. The

Petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd Respondent and he passed order on 11-03-2022 under Ex.M.19 stating that “the domestic enquiry it is established that the driver is responsible for unauthorized transportation of 732 prohibited liquor bottles, the same was established and the charges leveled against the appellant are proved” and rejected the appeal.

30)The Petitioner filed Review petition before Regional Manager and the same was rejected under Ex.M.20 proceedings and also the mercy petition was also rejected under Ex.M.21 by the Executive Director, Kadapa.

31)During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of some management witnesses and one passenger. The petitioner availed the opportunities to cross-examine all the witnesses, i.e., Akula Subbaiah – Passanger;

Smt. Subbamma -Supt (T), Proddatur; Smt. Lavanya – Asst. Manager (T),

Proddatur.

32)During the enquiry, the petitioner was cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer.

Some of the relevant questions were extracted below, wherein the petitioner categorically stated as follows:

Q. How many Passengers are there in the bus?

A. Nearly 25 members

Q. Where did you stopped the bus and loaded luggage?

A. Near Race Course road.

Q. Whether the owner of the luggage was there in the bus?

A. Yes. Akula Subbaiah was there

Q. Whether you checked while loading luggage?

A. No.

Q. Is it not your responsibility to verify the luggage while loading?

12

A. Yes. As I stopped the bus by the side due to that I cannot get down to verify and also due to traffic.

Q. Due to non-issuance of luggage ticket, it causes loss to the Corporation?

A. As it is cloths bag, due to that I did not issue tickets.

Q. Do you know up to how many kilos there is free for passenger luggage?

A. I know up to 50 kgs.

Q. Have you informed to Depot authorities immediately after your arrest?

A. Yes informed over phone and also to the Leader.

Q. Is any person is there to whom the luggage belongs?

A. Son of the owner of the luggage is there, aged 35 years.

Q. But you said Akula Subbaia?

A. Yes

Q. Have you issued ticket to him?

A. He buy the ticket from Race Court to Yerraguntla

Q. Asst. Manager informed that it is mentioned in the FIR that yourself alone gave the bags and there is no other person?

A. The other person is in the bus and he loaded the luggage

33)During the enquiry, Akula Subbaiah, Passenger categorically stated that

he stopped the bus at Race Course Bus Stop and put his luggage in the

dickey and buy the ticket to Yerraguntla get into the bus at Race Court .

34) Petitioner also availed the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. During

the statement of Akula Subbaiah, Passenger the petitioner cross-examined

and he stated as follows:

Q. Do you know that there are liquor bottles in the bags?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Is the driver had any link with the liquor bottles?

A. We both do not have any links and police foisted false case against us.

13

Q. Have you travelled in the bus along with bags?

A. Yes, I travelled in the bus

Q. Have you informed the same to RTC Department?

A. Yes, I informed in writing

35) During the statement of Smt Subbamma, Supt. (T), the petitioner cross- examined her and she stated as follows:

Q. On 08-07-2021 to what duty the concerned driver attended?

A. 07:00 hrs., Bengalore Duty

Q. Who informed you about the 8 liquor bottles found from the particular driver?

A. Depot Manager, Hindupur

Q. Is there any complaints against the particular driver?

A. No

Q. How he is performing duties?

A. Very Good

Q. Is there any absenteeism while on duty?

A. No

Q. Is it necessary to issue ticket by the particular driver after weighing the luggage?

A. It is not necessary to issue luggage ticket.

36) Another witness Smt K. Anuradha, RC of Proddatur Depot, during her cross-examination stated as follows:

Q. You did not mention the name of the Nagendra in your report to Head Constable, is it true?

A. Yes, they asked only about M.N.Swamy and I informed only about him

37)Likewise in the statement of Smt Lavanya, Asst. Manager (T), Proddatur

categorically stated in her cross-examination by the petitioner as follows:

Q How is the behavior of Nagendra working in your Depot? A I did not come across any complaints and he do his duties normally Q In your Preliminary report, you stated that the owner of the luggage 14 was not there, but the said owner was in the bus? Why you did not taken into consideration?

A In the Paper Clippings, the driver was shown as accused. The owner of the luggage was not found in the Paper. So through the Photo, it was assumed that the said owner of the luggage was not traveling, hence I mentioned the same. Q If you go through the FIR, the name of the one Akula Subbaiah who was also arrested, if he was not traveling then why he was arrested?

A I assumed that in the brief particulars of the case at 11 th column of FIR, it is mentioned that search of the owner of luggage not surrender to any body. As per the confession of driver the bus was punctured and handed over the bags to the driver

Q Accused 2 by name Akula Subbaiah in his written statement to the Depot Manager categorically stated that he traveled in the bus and the driver is no way connected with the liquor bottles and the said driver do not know about the liquor bottles in the bags. The same was mentioned in your Enquiry also, but why don’t you taken the said aspect into consideration? Akula Subbaiah gave his statement on 19- 08-2021, whereas I submitted Report on 10-08-2021, then how can I take into consideration.

Q Whether the particular driver involved such type of case previously?

A If you verify his P.K.S, you may know, but I do not know about his P.K.S.

Q On which Service the particular driver was attending?

A He is attending Bangalore

Q Whether it is Chart Duty?

A No, it is not Chart Duty, due to Corona Period Chart duties were not allotted .

Q Is it One Man Service?

A Yes. Q Had the owner of the Liquor bottles was identified? A It belongs to Police case.

15

Q Did you explain how the driver was misleading the Department?

A In the FIR Copy, it is mentioned that “Punchers in Bangalore city and giving to me Dudekula Nagendra”, and some other person given the bags to the driver as the vehicle was puncher in city out skirts, but the driver did not say the same. Therefore it clearly shows that the driver was misleading.

Q Did the driver informed you that the owner of the luggage was in the bus?

A Yes

38)On careful perusal of entire record and evidence, the Enquiry Officer mainly relied on Police Report and FIR as well as assumptions and presumptions and came to conclusion that the Petitioner involved in unauthorized transportation of liquor bottles and same was confirmed by 1st and 2nd respondents as well as Appellate authorities. No independent enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and the statement of

Management Witnesses clearly shows that the Petitioner has no previous criminal cases and that there is no documentary evidence to show that the

Petitioner involved in the criminal case. The Enquiry Officer relied on the confession of the Petitioner before the police and the same is not proved.

39)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., - 2009 (1) Supreme 438, held as follows:

“Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the material brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence

collected during the investigation by the Investigating

Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated

to be evidence in disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof.

16

Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer

on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence”

40)In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court further noticed that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in alleged offence. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence, even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the Enquiry Officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.

While setting aside the judgment of High court, the Hon’ble Apex court also held that “The order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The material brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible…..as the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof

41)In the instant case on hand, no doubt, the Enquiry Officer merely relying on the police report and FIR and without considering the explanation of the Petitioner as well as the Cross-examination of witnesses by the petitioner. The entire

Domestic Report is silent about the independent enquiry conducted by the Enquiry

Officer, which is crystal clear that the Enquiry Officer only basing on FIR came to conclusion that the charges against the Petitioner is proved and the same was confirmed by the 2nd respondent and other authorities. The facts and circumstances of the decision supra, will aptly applicable to the present case. As stated by the 17

Hon’ble Apex court, the Enquiry Officer has not conducted enquiry independently

and pass order merely basing on surmises and conjectures.

42)The Petitioner cannot be removed from service solely based on a police report. Case law generally requires that a departmental inquiry or similar process be conducted to investigate the allegations, and a fair opportunity must be given to the employee to defend himself. The police report is just one piece of evidence that can be considered during the departmental inquiry. The police report is considered as one piece of evidence in the departmental inquiry. It doesn't automatically lead to removal from service. The disciplinary authority must consider all evidence presented, including the police report, and make a decision based on the facts. In the said case, the Enquiry Officer as well as Appellate authorities did not consider the material evidences and pass removal orders.

43)In view of the discussion by relying on the judgments supra, this Court is of view that a workman cannot be removed from service solely on the basis of a police report. A proper departmental inquiry must be conducted. The police report is just one piece of evidence to be considered during the inquiry. Further this court opined that the criminal case against the Petitioner was ended in acquittal. Domestic enquiry conducted by the 1st Respondent and confirmed by the 2nd respondent and other authorities appears to be unsatisfactory. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was involved in similar type of case. Ex.M.22 Service Record of the petitioner shows that there are no such such type of cases and some of the

Witnesses in their statement also admitted that the petitioner is not having any adverse record.

44) However, taking into consideration of the available material and taking into consideration of the orders of the reviewing authority as referred to above, this

Tribunal holds that the punishment of removal of the Petitioner from service is harsh and same is liable to be set aside in order to give an opportunity to the

Petitioner/Workman. In the light of the evidence and materials, this Court is of view that the punishment of removal from service was grossly disproportionate to the alleged transportation of liquor bottles. The punishment imposed by the 18

Disciplinary Authority is excessive. In the circumstances, the removal orders passed by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings No. . E3/118(1)/2021-PDTR dated 10.01.2022 is liable to set aside to meet the ends of Justice as a measure of punishment, Petitioner/Workman has to be imposed punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

POINT No.ii :

In the result, the I.D is allowed in part. The order passed by the 1st

Respondent removing the Petitioner from service vide proceedings No.. E3/118(1)/ 2021-PDTR dated 10.01.2022 and the Orders confirmed by the Appellate

Authorities are hereby set aside. The Respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service. The Petitioner is not entitled for back-wages and attendant benefits on the principle of “No work No pay”. The

Respondents are further directed to defer two annual increments with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment.

Typed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 22 nd day of

January, 2026.

Sd/- Smt.G.SRIDEVI

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR Petitioner:FOR Respondent:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR Petitioner:

1)Ex.W-1Dt.10.01.2022Copy of Notification with the removal proceedings of the Depot Manager, Proddatur.

2)Ex.W-2Dt.11.03.2022Copy of proceedings of the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Kadapa.

3)Ex.W-3Dt.-Pay slip for the month of April, 2021.

19

4)Ex.W-4Dt.29.09.2023Copy of Judgment of Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur in

C.C.No.1190/2022.

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1Dt.07.07.2021STAR document & Auxiliary Way bill.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.07.07.2021Report on cash and Ticket Irregularities by AM(T).

3)Ex.M-3Dt.08.07.2021RTC constable report.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.09.07.2021RTC Head constable Reports.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.05.08.2021Preliminary Enquiry Report of Asst. Manager (T), Proddatur.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.12.08.2021Charge sheet & Suspension orders.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.12.08.2021Acknowledgment for CS & SO.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.17.08.2021Explanation to the charge sheet.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.19.08.2021Passenger Statement.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.27.10.2021Enquiry call letters.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.12.11.2021Domestic Enquiry report (DER).

12)Ex.M-12Dt.30.11.2021Objections/Remarks called on DER.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.10.12.2021Remarks by the Petitioner on DER.

14)Ex.M-14Dt.24.12.2021Show cause notice for removal from service.

15)Ex.M-15Dt.--Acknowledgment.

16)Ex.M-16Dt. 03.01.2022Explanation to the SCN for removal.

17)Ex.M-17Dt.10.01.2022Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

18)Ex.M-18Dt.10.01.2022Acknowledgment for removal order.

19)Ex.M-19Dt.11.03.2022Petitioner appeal to the Appellate Authority.

20)Ex.M-20Dt.31.03.2022Proceedings of the Review Authority.

21)Ex.M-21Dt.21.07.2022Proceedings of the Appeal Authority.

20

22)Ex.M-22Dt.--Service record of the Petitioner.

Sd/- Smt.G.SRIDEVI

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Compared by:

Read by:

//By Order//

Superintendent, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu.

1

APAN000035322022

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-cum-LABOUR COURT, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt G.Sridevi,

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

WEDNESDAY THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

I.D.No.7/2023

Between: V.Bhaskar, Aged 57 years, S/o late V.Krishna Murthy, Conductor, E.No.508501, Sivalayam Street, Patha Rayachoti, Kadapa District. … Petitioner

AND

1) The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Palamaner depot, Chittoor District.

2) The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Chittoor District.

3) The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Tirupathi.

4)The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.TC, Nellore zone,

Nellore District. ... Respondents

This Industrial Dispute coming on 11-12-2025 before this Tribunal in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri

S.Chandrasekhara, Law Officer of the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

2

A W A R D

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the

Respondents and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Sec. 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2)Pursuant of filing of Industrial Dispute by the Petitioner, notice sent to the

Respondents. The Petitioner made his appearance through his counsel and submitted a claim statement. The brief averments in the claim statement are that the Petitioner was appointed as Conductor, in the Respondent Corporation in the year 1991. From the date of joining the Petitioner was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors.

3)While that was so, a charge sheet was issued against the Petitioner by the

Depot Manager, Palamaner Depot with the following charges.

For having un-authorisedly absent for your duty from 27.05.2020 to 3.1.2021 i.e., for 222 days continuously without intimation or obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave, which resulted in dislocation of operations at the depot and hardship to traffic supervisors to operate the services punctually causing much inconvenience to the traveling public besides loss of revenue to the Corporation which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxvii)of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963”.

4)The charges leveled against the Petitioner is false and baseless, he has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet much less under

APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations. The Petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Andhra Pradesh imposed a lockdown, resulting in the

Respondent Corporation suspending bus services and making travel within the state impossible. In this period, the Petitioner traveled to Rayachoty to attend to the welfare of his wife and children; however, on June 24, 2020, he, his wife, and his sisters unfortunately contracted the COVID-19 virus, rendering him unable to leave his home or attend to his duties. Despite these circumstances and the fact that the

Respondent Corporation had exempted senior staff over the age of 56, the 3

Respondent proceeded to remove the Petitioner from service based on a false ex- parte enquiry. This enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, making the removal both unjust and invalid. As the Petitioner’s duties were strictly manual and technical, involving no supervisory or managerial functions, he is a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the

Respondent Organization is an ‘Industry’. Following his removal by the Depot

Manager on February 27, 2021, the Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies by appealing to the second, third, and fourth respondents; however, each authority rejected his claims. The Petitioner, a person of limited means with a wife and two children to support, has remained without a source of income since his removal. Consequently, it is prayed that the removal order dated February 27, 2021, and the subsequent appellate decisions be set aside, and that the respondents be directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service, back wages, and all attendant benefits.

5)The Respondents has filed Counter denying all the allegations made in the

Claim Statement except those which are specifically admitted in their Counter. The

Petitioner was appointed as Casual Conductor in the Respondent Corporation on 24.12.1991 and subsequently his services were regularized w.e.f 01.08.1992 and date of retirement of the Petitioner would be 31.05.2026 if he is in service. The past service record of the Petitioner is not good. He was censured for 12 times and amounts were recovered from his salary for 08 times and annual increments were deferred for 46 times in different cases. The Petitioner was removed on 03 occasions on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities, absenteeism cases later he was reinstated by the appellate authorities. In the present case also

Petitioner involved in absenteeism case and removed from service.

6)The On Duty Controller, Palamaner depot sent report that the Petitioner absented to his duties from 27.05.2020 to 03.01.2021 i.e., for 222 days continuously without intimation or obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave from the Traffic Supervisors, which resulted in for dislocation of services, causing much inconvenience to the traveling public and also caused much inconvenience to 4 the Traffic supervisors for arranging substitute in the place of the Petitioner. Basing on the absenteeism report, the Respondent issued charge sheet against the

Petitioner on 04.01.2021. The charge sheet was sent to the Petitioner’s residential address by RPAD and also exhibited the copy on the traffic notice board. The postal cover sent to the Petitioner with the charge sheet was returned un-served with the endorsement that the "Left without instructions". Then the 1st

Respondent ordered for enquiry by entrusting the enquiry to the Deputy

Superintendent (T), Palamaner. The enquiry officer sent enquiry call letters to the residential address of the Petitioner through RPAD on 25.1.2021 but the Petitioner failed to attend the enquiry. Then the Enquiry Officer conducted exparte enquiry and submitted his report.

7)A detailed enquiry was conducted in accordance with the C.C & A

Regulations by following the principles of natural justice. Basing on the evidence available on record, the Respondent came to a provisional conclusion that the charges leveled against the Petitioner were held proved, for which a penalty of removal from service is fit and proper to be imposed on the Petitioner. Accordingly

Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice of removal from service on 15.02.2021 and the same was sent to the Petitioner and he acknowledged the same but there was no response for the show cause notice of removal. The

Respondent issued final orders of removal from service of the Corporation with immediate effect vide proceedings No.E2/1(01)/2021-PLMR dt.27.02.2021. Upon the removal order, the Petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic

Manager, Chittoor and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 17.6.2021.

The Petitioner preferred appeal to the Regional Manager, Tirupati and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 28.07.2021. Later the Petitioner preferred mercy appeal before the Executive Director, Nellore zone and the same was rejected on merits vide proceedings dt.30.10.2021. The action taken by the

Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authorities are just.

8)The Respondent APSRTC absorbed into Transport Department as per the

Act No.36/2019 dated 27.12.2009 and the same was published in the gazette vide 5

G.O.Ms.No.50, 51 & 52 T,R & B (TR.II) Department dated 30.12.2019 and the ser- vices Regulations of A.P Government are not applicable to the Petitioner as the Pe- titioner involved in the absenteeism case after merger of the A.P.S.R.T.C into Gov- ernment and the Respondents requested to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner.

9)The Respondent followed due procedure of enquiry before taking the deci- sion of removal from service. The action taken by the Disciplinary Authority and the confirmation of the said removal order by the appellate authorities are just and re- quested to dismiss the claim statement of the Petitioner.

10)The Respondent Management filed additional Counter where in reiterated all the averments of the Counter.

11)During the course of enquiry, learned counsel for the Petitioner filed a Memo stating that Petitioner is not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry procedurally and requested to reappraise the merits of the case in the interest of justice.

12)Both sides have not adduced any oral evidence. Ex.W-1 to Ex.W.5 were marked on Petitioner’s side. On behalf of the Respondents Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-24 were marked.

13)Heard both sides, both sides filed written arguments.

14)Now the points that arise for consideration is; i.Whether the impugned order Progs.No.E2/1(01)/2021- PLMR dated 27.02.2021 passed by the 1 st Respondent and

subsequent orders as confirmed by the other

respondents are legal, valid and sustainable in law or on

facts or it requires any interference by setting aside the

impugned orders by way of reinstating the Workman with

continuity of service with full back-wages and attendant

benefits?

ii.If so, to what result?

6

POINTS No.i&ii:

15)It is the case of REMOVAL of the Petitioner from the service vide

Proceedings No. E2/1(01)/2021-PLMR dated 27.02.2021 for unauthorized absent to duties from 27-05-2020 to 03-01-2021, i.e., 222 days continuously without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave.

16)The learned Counsel for the Petitioner during the arguments submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Government of A.P., imposed lockdown and consequently, the Corporation stopped services. The Petitioner further submitted that during his stay at Rayachoti with his family, he got affected with Covid-19 on 24-06-2020 along with his wife and his sisters, therefore he could not move out of the house at Rayachoti. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is excessive and that the removal of the Petitioner from service is unjust and disproportionate and requested to set aside the removal order and reinstate the

Petitioner into service with continuity of service with all benefits.

17)Per contra, the Respondent filed counter by admitting the appointment of

Petitioner as Casual Conductor in the Respondent Corporation on 24.12.1991 and subsequently his services were regularized w.e.f 01.08.1992 and the date of retirement of the Petitioner is 31.05.2022. The services of the Petitioner was removed from service by the Respondent Corporation on 27-02-2021 for having involved in absenteeism case at Palamaner Depot as he was unauthorized absent to his duties from 27-05-2020 to 03-01-2021, i.e., 222 days continuously without any prior permission or sanction of leave resulted in for dislocation of services, causing inconvenience to the Traffic Supervisors for arranging substitutes in his place and also caused dislocation of operation of services besides inconvenience to the travelling public. The Removal order No. E2/1(01)/2021-PLMR dated 27.02.2021 passed by the 1st Respondent is just and prayed to dismiss the Petition.

18)To substantiate the case of the Petitioner, he filed Exs.W.1 to W.4

Proceedings of the respondents and Pay slips.

7

19)On perusal of record, it reveals from Ex.M.1 that the On-duty Controller,

Palamaner Depot reported to Depot Manager, Palamaner that the Petitioner was unauthorized absent from 27-05-2020 to 03-01-2021, i.e., 222 days continuously without obtaining permission and prior sanction. Basing on Ex.M.1, the Depot

Manager, Palamaner framed a charge-sheet against the Petitioner under Ex.M.2 vide No.E2/1(1)/2021-PLMR, dt.04-01-2021. Based on the above allegations, the charges are framed against the Petitioner.

For having un-authorisedly absent for your duty from 27.05.2020 to 3.1.2021 i.e., for 222 days continuously without intimation or obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave, which resulted in dislocation of operations at the depot and hardship to traffic supervisors to operate the services punctually causing much inconvenience to the traveling public besides loss of revenue to the Corporation which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxvii)of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963”.

20)The charge-sheet was supplied to the Petitioner by Registered Post acknowledgment due and the same was returned duly stating that “LEFT

WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS”. Ex.M.3 is the Endorsement of postal authorities on the cover sent to the Petitioner residential address by RPAD, dt.07-01-2021. The charge-sheet was exhibited on the Traffic Notice Board on 19-01-2021 (Ex.M.4) in the presence of two witnesses for a period of seven days.

21)In order to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner, the 1st respondent nominated Dy. Superintendent (T), APSRTC, Palamaner as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the Petitioner under Ex.M.5. The Enquiry Officer sent enquiry call letter, dt.25-01-2021 through RPAD under Ex.M.6 to the Petitioner’s residence address to attend the Enquiry on any days, i.e., 29-01-2021, 31-01-2021 and 02-02-2021. Ex.M.6 was returned by the Postal authorities as un-served with an endorsement that “no addressee available in the address”. The charge-sheet was served on the Petitioner personally on 25-01-2021 (Ex.M.7), he acknowledged the same, but failed to submit any explanantion and also failed to attend before the

Enquiry Officer. Ex.M.7 reads as follows:

8 “With reference to the above subject cited, you are hereby advised to attend before the undersigned to conduct detailed enquiry into the above subject on any of the following days as detailed below.

1. 29-01-2021 2. 31-01-2021 3. 02-02-2021 Further it is to inform that, if you failed to attend before the undersigned for enquiry, ex-parte enquiry will be conducted and report will be submitted accordingly”.

22)On perusal of the Ex.M.7, a fair opportunity was given to the Petitioner, he received Ex.M.7 and inscribed his signature on it, but the Petitioner failed to give explanation nor attended the enquiry. Ex.M.8 is the acknowledgment.

23)Finally, the Enquiry Officer conducted an exparte enquiry by recording the statement of Sri V. Damodaram, Controller under Ex.M.9 and submitted Domestic

Enquiry Report, dated 12.02.2021. The statement of the Controller is as follows:

1. Is it true that a report was given that Sri V.Bhaskar – E 508501 Conductor was absented from duties from 27-05-2020 to 03-01-2021, i.e., 222 days? A. Yes, he is regularly absented from duties.

2. Have you informed and called him over phone to attend the enquiry on the dates of enquiry? A. Yes, I informed, he intentionally did not attended the enquiry.

3. Do you want to say anything? A. He is regularly absenting to duties. Lastly he was unauthorized absent from 27-05-2020 to 03-01-2021.

24)The Petitioner on 08-02-2021, submitted his explanation under Ex.M.10 stating that he got affected Covid-19 positive on 24-06-2020 and after taking treatment he got negative on 10-07-2020, his wife Smt. Eswaramma got Covid-19 positive on 20-07-2020 and after treatment, she got negative report on 05-08-2020, due to the said reason, he did not attended duties and also the Government issued circular exempting the persons aged about 56 years not to attend the duties and due to his wife’s ill health, he could not attended the duties. The Petitioner filed the typed copy reports on a white paper before the Authorities.

9

25)Basing on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice of removal, dt.15.02.2021 under Ex.M-11. The show cause notice of removal under Ex.M.11, dt 15-02-2021 was sent to the Petitioner’s address and the

Petitioner acknowledged the same under Ex.M.12 and submitted his Ex.M.13 explanation to show cause notice with the same reasons in Ex.M.10. The case of the Petitioner before this Court for the said unauthorized absent is that he and his family got affected with Covid-19. To substantiate the case of the Petitioner, he filed typed copies of the reports on a white paper along with explanation. The 1st respondent after considering the enquiry report and explanation of the Petitioner issued Ex.M.14 proceedings No.E2/1(1)/2021-PLMR, dt.27-02-2021 by removing the Petitioner from service. Ex.M.14 concluded as follows:

“The undersigned perused the explanation submitted by the employee and which is not convincing one since the employee has not even informed the same to this office during the entire period from the day of absent for duty, i.e., 27-05-2020 to till date and even failed to approach this office to enable this office to direct him for further better treatment. Further the employee even failed to attend before the undersigned for personal hearing also to defend his case, which clearly speaks out that Sri V.Bhaskar E.508501 Conductor is not at all having any interest in his job and habituated for irregular absenteeism and not produced any valid evidences to prove his illness.”

26)In the instant case on hand, the Petitioner did not adduce evidence establishing the same. If the Petitioner was able to discharge the initial onus of proof that he and his family suffered with ill-health during his absent period, the burden would then shift to the opposite party. Having failed to prove the pleadings of the Petitioner with his evidence affidavit, the burden of proof would not shift on the opposite party.

27) The Petitioner was absented for his duties from 27-05-2020 to till date. The charge sheet was framed on 04-01-2021; Enquiry call letter was issued on 23-01- 2021; Show Cause notice was issued on 15-02-2021. This clearly shows that the

Petitioner was unauthorized absented for duties from 27-05-2020 to till date i.e., for 10 10 months. No doubt, absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence.

28)In Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sardar Singh (2004) 7 SCC 574, the

Hon’ble Apex Court opined:

“11. Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence, more particularly, when same is unauthorized. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was no negligence and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the Standing Orders shows the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement of prior permission. Only exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-observance of which renders the absence unauthorized.”

29)In North-Eastern Karnataka RT Corpn. -vs- Ashappa (2006) SCC (L&S) 942, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a similar case of a conductor of a transport

Corporation, where also the question was dismissal of bus conductor where he remained absent for three years, has in paragraph-8 of the judgment, held as under “Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The appellant runs a fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the buses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein has to be treated lightly”.

The Hon’ble Apex Court further opined that we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority was fully justified in law. This we also say so because Statutory Corporations, which provide public utility services are to maintain certain standard of performance and if they are saddled with the liability to continue either incompetent or irresponsible employees in service, even when serious charges against them are found to be proved, then they will not be able to discharge their statutory responsibilities properly.

11

Having sympathy for a workman who performs his duties dutifully but has faltered because of some valid reason is different from being negligent or careless, who repeatedly flouts the Rules of service and does not even respond to notices or participate in the enquiry proceedings even after service. No sympathy deserves to be given in the latter case as it would adversely affect the discipline of the organization and spoil the system, which should not be permitted by Court of law. While exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, Court should exercise its discretionary powers only when it is just and equitable to grant the relief, which was not so in the present case as it would be at the cost of the public at large.

30)In the instant case also, the Petitioner absented himself without any reason and without prior permission or sanction of leave. Even assuming for a movement that the Petitioner and his family got affected with Covid-19 Positive, his own explanation shows that on 24-06-2020 he got positive and after treatment he got negative on 10-07-2020 and his wife got Covid-19 positive on 20-07-2020 and got negative on 05-08-2020, but he was silent up to 08-02-2021. Even excluding those period from 24-06-2020 to 05-08-2020, the Petitioner did not attended the duties from August, 2020 to till date. He then chose not to participate in the enquiry proceedings despite having been served with the notice of enquiry.

31)It is necessary to discuss the Regulation 28(ix)(a) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, refers to a specific type of misconduct within the context of disciplinary actions against employees of the Andhra Pradesh State

Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). It specifically deals with conduct that is considered a serious breach of the corporation's rules and regulations, potentially leading to disciplinary measures against the employee.

32)Regulation 28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 which is extracted and reproduced hereunder:

“28. General Provisions: Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing regulations, the following acts or omissions shall be treated as misconduct:- xxvii) habitual late attendance, irregular attendance, absence without leave and without reasonable cause and absence without permission and wasting time or loitering while on duty”.

12

33)The actions of the Petitioner fall within the parameter of the above rule as the

Petitioner resorted to unauthorized absence which is without permission, causing loss of revenue to the Respondent Corporation.

34)As discussed about the earlier conduct of the Petitioner shows that he absented to duties unauthorizedly and there is no plausible explanation, except stating that he and his family got affected with Covid-19 without any medical treatment records.

35)Basing on the report of Enquiry Officer, opportunities and show cause notices were given to the Petitioner. Management witnesses were examined and stated that Petitioner was unauthorized absent for his duties regularly and even he did not join the duties. The record shows that at every stage enquiry officer as well as the

Disciplinary Authority provided opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case, after receipt of the enquiry report, Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice of removal, for which Petitioner submitted his explanation, which is not satisfactory.

Petitioner has not filed any documentary proof with regard to alleged aspects. After issuance of show cause notice of removal, Disciplinary Authority provided opportunity to the Petitioner to substantiate his case. This is not disputed by the

Petitioner and it only goes to show that he is unauthorized absent in attending to his duties and also indulges in misconduct. As such, the acts of the Petitioner constitute misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct)

Regulations, 1963.

36)A glance of enquiry report clearly shows that Disciplinary Authority followed due procedure of enquiry and opportunity was provided to the Petitioner to defend his case. Reading of entire record shows that Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority followed the principles of natural justice.

37)As seen from Ex.M.19 Service record, it reveals that even before to the impugned proceedings of removal, the Petitioner was suspended for three times in

Cash and Ticket Irregularities and Removed one time in cash and ticket irregularities and two times in Absenteeism cases. For the First time, the Petitioner 13 was removed from service of the Corporation on 02-05-2016 for having involved in

Absenteeism case at Chittoor-II-Depot and reinstated on 19-05-2017 as a measure of punishment his basic pay was reduced by one increment with cumulative effect and posted to Madanapalli-2 Depot. Secondly, the Petitioner was removed from service on 15-03-2018 for having involved in Absenteeism case at

Kuppam Depot and reinstated into service on 10-12-2018 as a measure of punishment his annual increment deferred for a period of One year with cumulative effect and posted to Palamaner Depot

38)This is the THIRD time the Petitioner involved in Absenteeism Case and removed from service on 27-02-2021.

39)This is not disputed by the Petitioner and it only goes to show that the

Petitioner is irregular in attending to his duties. The counsel for Petitioner during the course of arguments argued that while imposing the punishment, the past conduct of the Petitioner cannot be taken into consideration and that the respondent

Corporation removed the Petitioner from the service basing on the past conduct.

This court is of the view that as the Petitioner did not improve in spite of being punished earlier and had become habitual in indiscipline and disorderliness, the

Disciplinary Authority rightly found Charge as proved. The desirability of continuance of the Petitioner was considered on the basis of his past conduct. In any event, past conduct of a delinquent employee can be taken into consideration while imposing penalty.

40)In a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bishamber

Das Dogra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 102, held as follows:

“30. ...... But in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require.”

41)In view of the foregoing discussion and citation supra, this Court is of view that despite the respondent's Corporation removing the Petitioner from service on 14 an earlier occasions, he was reinstated, the Petitioner resorted to unauthorized absence. As such, the acts of the Petitioner constitute misconduct in terms of

Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Further is of view that the APSRTC provides for public utility services and it is the duty to maintain certain standard of performance and if they are saddled with the liability to continue either incompetent or irresponsible employees in service, even when serious charges against them are found to be proved, then they will not be able to discharge their statutory responsibilities properly. Having sympathy for a workman who performs his duties dutifully but has faltered because of some valid reason is different from being negligent or careless, who repeatedly flouts the Rules of service and does not even respond to notices or participate in the enquiry proceedings even after service. No sympathy deserves to be given in the present case as it would adversely affect the discipline of the organization and spoil the system, which should not be permitted by Court of law and this court opines that impugned order No.E2/1(1)/2021-PLMR, Dt. 27-02-2021 passed by the 1st respondent and subsequent orders as confirmed by the 2nd to 4th respondents are legal, valid and sustainable in law and do not requires any interferenceHence, the petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, this point is answered against the

Petitioner.

In the result, the Petition is dismissed. The removal order vide proceedings

No. E2/1(1)/2021-PLMR, Dt. 27-02-2021 and the orders of the appellate authorities are hereby confirmed and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the

Award is passed.

Typed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21 st day of January, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.G.SRIDEVI

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

15

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR Petitioner:FOR Respondent:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR Petitioner:

1)Ex.W-1Dt.27.02.2021Copy of proceedings of the Depot Manager, Palamaner.

2)Ex.W-2Dt.17.06.2021Copy of proceedings of the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Chittoor.

3)Ex.W-3Dt.28.07.2021Copy of Proceedings of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Tirupati.

4)Ex.W-4Dt.30.10.2021Copy of proceedings of the Executive director, APSRTC, Nellor zone, Nellore.

5)Ex.W-5Dt.-Pay slip for the month of January 2020.

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1Dt.03.01.2021Report of the n duty Controller, Palamaner.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.04.01.2021Charge sheet.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.07.01.2021Endorsement of postal authorities on the cover sent to the Petitioner residential address by RPAD.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.19.01.2021Certification as having exhibited on traffic notice board of AM(T), Palamaner

5)Ex.M-5Dt.23.01.2021Nomination of Enquiry officer letter.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.--Endorsement of postal authorities on the cover sent to the Petitioner’s residential address by RPAD.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.25.01.2021Enquiry call letter.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.27.01.2021Acknowledgement

9)Ex.M-9Dt.12.02.2021Domestic Enquiry report.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.12.02.2021Explanation to the charge sheet.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.15.02.2021Show cause notice of removal from 16 service.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.19.02.2021Acknowledgement.

13)Ex.M-13Dt. 24.02.2021Explanation to the show cause notice of removal

14)Ex.M-14Dt.27.02.2021Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

15)Ex.M-15Dt.-Acknowledgement.

16)Ex.M-16Dt.17.06.2021Proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

17)Ex.M-17Dt.28.07.2021Proceedings of the Review Authority.

18)Ex.M-18Dt.30.10.2021Proceedings of the Appeal Authority.

19)Ex.M-19Dt.--Service record of the Petitioner.

20)Ex.M-20Dt.27.12.2019A.P Gazette No.36 of 2019.

21)Ex.M-21Dt.27.12.2019G.O.Ms.No.50.

2)Ex.M-22Dt.27.12.2019G.O.Ms.No.51

23)Ex.M-23Dt.27.12.2019G.O.Ms.No.52

24)Ex.M-24Dt.18.02.2019Notification No..PD-04 of 2020.

Sd/-Smt.G.SRIDEVI

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Compared by:

Read by:

//By Order//

Superintendent, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu.

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt.G.Sridevi, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

FRIDAY THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

E.P.No.496/2023 in I.D.No.190/2012

Between:

The General Secretary, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, Telugu Ganga Water Supply Workers Union, R.No.F.1999, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.… Decree holder

AND

The Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, Tirupathi, Chittoor district. Now Tirupathi District. … Judgment Debtor

This E.P is coming on before this Court for hearing on 03.12.2025 in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Decree Holder/Petitioner and Sri I.Ravindranath, Advocate for Judgment Debtor/Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following;

O R D E R

This Petition is filed under Sections 11 B of I.D Act r/w Order XXI Rules 43, 64 & 66 of CPC.

2)This Court passed an Award in Industrial Dispute (I.D.) No. 190 of 2012.

The Petitioner submits that the Respondent has failed and neglected to implement the said Award by not extending the benefit of the Last Grade Pay

Scale of Pump Operator, effective from the date of the reference, specifically

December 12, 2012, to the members of the Petitioner's Union, nor have the 2 services of the concerned Workmen been regularized. The Petitioner, therefore, seeks the regularization of services to be made effective from the date of the publication of the Award. The Petitioner's Union has quantified the resultant arrears of differential wages due to each workman covered by the I.D to an aggregate sum of Rs.10,70,765/-. Consequently, in the event the Respondent fails to satisfy the Award, the Petitioner prays for the initiation of appropriate execution proceedings and a direction from this Court for the attachment and subsequent sale of the schedule mentioned property Annexed to this Execution

Petition (E.P.) for the realization of the Awarded sums.

The result portion of the Award in I.D.No.190/2012 is as follows; “In the result, the reference made by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool in proceedings No.D1/3148/2012 dt.30-11-2012 is answered partly in favour of the Petitioners/Workmen holding that the Petitioner Union is partly justified in demanding regularization of services of 125 Workmen who have been working regularly in Telugu Ganga Water Supply Scheme, a wing of Municipal Corporation, Tirupati. The Workmen are entitled for Last Grade Scale/initial pay of a Pump Operator from the date of registration of the reference i.e., from 12-12-2012. They are entitled for regularization of their services with effect from the date of publication of the Award. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

The Award passed by this Court was published by the Government in

G.O.Rt.No.547, Labour Employment Training & Factories (OP) Department dated 16.10.2019 and the said copy was communicated to the Respondent

Management and the Petitioner Union also filed representation on 04.11.2019, even then also the Respondent has not been implemented the Award but the

Respondent-Management filed W.P.No.23827/2022 against the Award before the

Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court hasun not granted stay, so they

have filed the E.P No.496/2023 before this Court. In the said E.P the Respondent-

Management filed Counter wherein disputed the calculation sheet filed by the

Union for payment of wages w.e.f 12.12.2012. The calculations arrived by the decree holders are just and requested to direct the Judgment Debtor for payment of the calculated amount or else to order for sale of the attached scheduled property.

3

3)The Judgment Debtor filed a Counter, submitting that the execution petition (EP) was neither maintainable in law nor on facts and was liable to be dismissed in limine.

4)It was submitted that the present E.P sought the execution of the Award in

I.D. No. 190/2012, dated 14.08.2019, whereby the Union was partly justified in demanding regularization of 125 Workmen, who were held entitled to last grade scale/initial pay of a pump operator from the date of registration of the reference.

It was contended that a W.P. No. 23827 of 2022, challenging the Award, had been filed and was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Consequently, the Award was sub-judice, and the E.P was liable to be dismissed on account of its pendency.

5)The further contention of the Respondent in the counter is that the E.P was not maintainable as the Labour Court had not computed the wages allegedly payable to each workman in the Award. The petitioners had not filed a computation petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act). The Award was silent about the emoluments the petitioners were entitled to in the last grade scale, and there was no specific direction to the

Respondent to pay specific wages to specific Petitioners

6)The Judgment Debtor asserted that the Petitioners ought to have approached the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act, to seek computation of their entitlement regarding the last grade scale and consequent determination of the amounts due. Filing the E.P directly under Section 11-B of the I.D. Act was erroneous, and execution, in the absence of determination and computation of emoluments, was legally impermissible.

7)The Judgment Debtor relied upon judicial precedents, including the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sunship Limited Vs. The Presiding Officer,

Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and a Division Bench of the Calcutta High

Court in Jessop and Co. Vs. M. Mukherjee, to emphasize that:

4

8)Recovery of amounts due to workmen should follow the procedure under

Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act. The power of execution under Section 11-B is contingent upon the quantification of the amount due. Where the money due is not specified or the benefit is not determined, Section 33(C)(2) is attracted for computation by the Labour Court. The Respondent further submitted that the

Parliament, through the Amendment Act No. 24 of 2010 (w.e.f. 15.09.2010), inserted Sub-sections (9) and (10) into Section 11 of the I.D. Act, mandating execution of Awards as per Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and providing for transmission of the Award to a Civil Court for execution.

9)The Judgment Debtor contended that, in view of this Central Amendment, the power conferred upon the Labour Court by the State Government amendment, Section 11-B (vide A.P. Amendment Act No. 32 of 1987), stood divested. Relying on Article 251 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that

Central law shall prevail in case of repugnancy, it was submitted that the Labour

Court lacked the power or jurisdiction to execute the Award as a Civil Court decree.

10)It was further contended that the claim in the E.P was vague, and the calculation of amounts for each Petitioner was not specified. Attachment of properties could not be ordered without valid evidence and proof of the claim as per the service rules. The properties sought to be attached included vehicles that were hired/rented and did not belong to the Respondent Corporation, making the

EP unsustainable against such property.

11)Finally, it was submitted that the Petitioner workers were never employees of the Respondent Corporation but were engaged through outsourcing agencies until 2019. Subsequent to G.O. Ms. No. 126 dated 18.10.2019 and

G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 04.11.2019, the Petitioners had joined the Andhra Pradesh

Corporation for Outsourced Services (APCOS) and became its employees.

Therefore, APCOS was responsible for their employment and payment of wages, and the E.P was not maintainable against the Respondent.

5

12)The Decree Holder had not filed the G.Os with respect to Revised Pay

Scales, and the amounts claimed in the E.P were not determined in the Award, which decided only the entitled Pay Scales. The Judgment debtor requested to dismiss the E.P as it is not maintainable.

13) The Counsel for the Petitioner filed written arguments, heard the arguments of the Respondent Counsel.

In view of the pleadings of both parties, this court framed the following points for consideration.

1. Whether pendency of W.P. No.23827 of 2022 without stay bars execution of the Award?

2. Whether filing of a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act is mandatory?

3. Whether the Execution Petition is not maintainable for want of computation in the Award?

4. Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to execute the Award under Section 11-B of the I.D. Act?

5. Whether the Respondent is liable to satisfy the Award?

6. To what relief?

14)This Execution Petition is filed by the Decree Holder Union under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking execution of the Award passed by this Tribunal in I.D. No. 190 of 2012 dated 14-08-2019, which was published by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.547, Labour Employment Training & Factories (OP)

Department dated 16-10-2019.

Case of the D.hr/Petitioner in brief:

15)The Decree Holder workman Union raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.

No.190 of 2012 on behalf of 125 workmen working in Telugu Ganga Water Supply

Scheme, a wing of the Respondent Corporation. After due enquiry, this Tribunal passed an Award on 14-08-2019 holding that:

a) The Union was partly justified in demanding regularization of services of 125 workmen.

b) The workmen were entitled to Last Grade Scale / initial pay of Pump Operator w.e.f. 12-12-2012, i.e., the date of registration of reference.

6

c) The workmen were entitled for regularization of services from the date of publication of the Award.

16)Further averred that the Award was duly published on 16-10-2019. Despite publication and representations dated 04-11-2019, the Respondent failed to implement the Award. Hence, the present Execution Petition was filed.

Case of J.Dr/respondent in brief:

The Respondent filed a counter contending inter alia that:

a) The Award passed by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 190 of 2012 dated 14.08.2019 is under challenge in W.P. No.23827 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and hence the subsequently filed execution petition is not maintainable under law.

b) The Award does not compute individual wages of each workman and therefore execution cannot be sought on an aggregate sum.

c) The Petitioners ought to have filed a petition under Section 33- C(2) of the I.D. Act for computation.

d) Section 11-B of the I.D. Act stands overridden by Central Amendment Act 24 of 2010.

e) The workmen were engaged through outsourcing agencies and later absorbed into APCOS, hence the Respondent is not liable.

f) The claim amount is vague and unsupported by pay revision G.Os.

g) The properties sought for attachment do not belong to the Respondent.

17)On these grounds above mentioned, the respondent corporation sought for dismissal of the E.P. proceedings.

POINT No.1:

Whether pendency of writ petition without stay bars execution?

18)It is well-settled law that mere filing of a writ petition challenging an Award does not operate as a stay unless an express order of stay is granted. Admittedly, no stay has been granted by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.23827 of 2022.

An Award, once published under Section 17 of the I.D. Act, becomes enforceable 7 and binding unless stayed. Hence, pendency of the writ petition without stay does not bar execution.

The legal position is well settled that mere pendency of a writ petition does not render an Award inoperative.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court inShree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1, authoritatively held that:

“Unless the operation of an order is stayed, the order remains operative and enforceable.”

Similarly, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in APSRTC v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 2001 (2) ALT 253 held that, “execution proceedings are maintainable where no stay is granted”.

19)Therefore, in view of the decisions, this Tribunal is of opinion that Hon’ble

High Court did not ordered specific stay. Hence, the Execution Proceedings is maintainable. Accordingly, the finding on Point No.01 is Answered in the favour of the petitioner Union/Dhr.

POINT No.2:

Whether filing of petition under Section 33-C(2) is mandatory?

20)Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act is attracted only when the entitlement itself is disputed and requires adjudication. In the present case, the entitlement of the workmen is for :

Last Grade Scale of Pump Operator w.e.f. 12-12-2012, and Regularization from the date of publication of Award has already been adjudicated and conclusively determined by this Tribunal in I.D. No.190 of 2012.

21)What remains in the present petition is only computation of monetary benefits flowing from the Award, which is incidental and can be undertaken in execution proceedings. Therefore, filing of a separate petition under Section 33-

C(2) is not mandatory.

8

22)The distinction between adjudication of entitlement and computation of benefits is well recognized.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. P.S. Rajagopalan AIR 1964 SC 743, held that: “Section 33-C(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings and cannot be used to adjudicate fresh rights.” Further, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak (1995) 1 SCC 235,it was held:

“Where the entitlement has already been adjudicated, recourse to Section 33-C(2) is unnecessary.”

23)In the present case, entitlement to pay scale, effective date, and regularization stands conclusively adjudicated by this Tribunal. What remains is only a ministerial arithmetical exercise, which can be undertaken in execution proceedings.

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in APSRTC v. Labour Court, Guntur 2005 (4) ALT 353, held that:

“When entitlement is declared, execution can proceed without a separate 33-C(2) petition”

Similarly in State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur (1980) 1 SCC 4, it is held that, “When entitlement is already adjudicated, computation is incidental and does not require a fresh adjudication”.

Further in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak (supra), also held that, “Section 33-C(2) applies only when the very basis of entitlement is disputed, not when entitlement is declared and only quantification remains”.

In A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Labour Court, Guntur 2002 (2) LLJ 1186 (AP), it is held by the Hon’ble AP High Court that, 9 “Once the Award confers a monetary benefit based on a pay scale, the Labour Court can proceed with execution; non- quantification in the Award is not fatal”.

24)Therefore, Section 33-C(2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding, but it is not mandatory where the benefit flows directly from an Award and requires only arithmetical calculation. Accordingly, the Finding on Point No.02 is

Answered in the favour of the petitioner Union/Dhr.

POINT No.3:

Whether Execution Petition is not maintainable due to absence of computation in the Award?

25)The Award clearly declares the scale of pay and the effective dates.

Individual quantification is a ministerial act involving arithmetical calculation.

Absence of such computation in the Award does not render it inexecutable.

Execution Court is competent to verify calculation sheets and determine the amount payable on the basis of the Award. The Award clearly specifies:

the scale of pay, and the effective dates.

On this aspect, Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Brijpal Singh (2005) 8 SCC 58, held that:

“Execution Court can compute monetary benefits flowing from an adjudicated right.”

Similarly, in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. K.S. Lakshmidevamma (2001) 5 SCC 433, it was held that, “Absence of computation does not render an Award unenforceable”.

26)Hence, this Court is of view that the petition is maintainable in the absence of computation. Accordingly, the Finding on Point No.03 is Answered in the favour of the petitioner Union/Dhr.

10

POINT No.4 :

Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 11-B?

27)The contention that Section 11-B of the I.D. Act, as amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh, stands overridden by Central Amendment Act 24 of 2010 cannot be accepted. There is no express repeal, and the Central amendment is enabling in nature. Both provisions can operate harmoniously. Hence, this

Tribunal retains jurisdiction to execute its Award. Thus, when there is no express repeal of Section 11-B, then both provisions are procedural and enabling in nature and can operate harmoniously.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 45, held that, “Repugnancy arises only where simultaneous obedience is impossible”.

Hence, no such inconsistency of Repugnancy arises herein. Accordingly, the Finding on Point No.04 is answered in the favour of the petitioner Union/Dhr.

POINT No.5:

Whether Respondent is liable to satisfy the Award?

28)The Award was passed against the Respondent Corporation. Rights of the workmen crystallized upon publication of the Award. Subsequent outsourcing arrangements or engagement through APCOS cannot defeat the binding nature of the Award. Therefore, the Respondent is liable to implement and satisfy the

Award as the Award was passed against the Respondent Corporation. Rights crystallized upon publication of the Award and cannot be defeated by subsequent administrative arrangements.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank v. Neelam (2005) 5 SCC 91, held that:

“Employer cannot evade implementation of an Award by subsequent changes.” 11

29)Therefore, the respondent Corporation is liable to implement the award passed by this Tribunal in I.D. No.190/2012. Accordingly, Point No.05 is answered.

30)In view of the discussions supra, this tribunal is of considered opinion that the Decree Holder Union has quantified arrears payable to each workman at

Rs.10,70,765/-. The said amount is more arithmetically shown as a statement of difference of wages payable to each workman during the period from 01-01-2013 to 31-07-2023 based on the award passed by this Tribunal in ID. No. 190/2012

dated 14-08-2019 under Ex.W1, i.e., Annexure showing wage payable to each

workman for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.07.2023. The said amount shall be subject to verification of calculation by the Respondent and in the absence of any tenable objection, payment or implementation so far, the Decree Holder is entitled to execution of the said claim amount.

31)The quantification of arrears are based upon the Union filed Ex.W-1 computation statement; from the period: 01-01-2013 to 31-07-2023, based strictly on Award terms. The Petitioner’s Union is entitled for total arrears: 10,70,765/-� each. The Respondent failed to rebut calculations with alternative figures or service records, more particularly as mentioned under Ex.W1.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, held that “Arithmetical calculations supported by records need not be proved like a civil suit”.

32)In view of the findings recorded herein above and considering the material available on record, the Execution Petition is liable to be allowed. As already this

Tribunal in I.D.No. 190/2012, dated 14.08.2019 conclusively determined that the workmen were entitled for regularization of services from the date of publication of the Award and so also the workmen were entitled to Last Grade Scale / initial pay of Pump Operator w.e.f. 12-12-2012, i.e., the date of registration of reference.

Moreover, the same was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. Thus, this Tribunal is 12 reiterating the same in this E.P., proceedings. The Municipal Corporation,

Tirupathi is liable to implement the same. It is hereby recorded that, pursuant to the orders of this Tribunal in the present Execution Petition, warrants of attachment of movable properties were duly issued against the Judgment Debtor/

Municipal Corporation, Tirupati for realization of the decretal amount of �10,70,765/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty

Five only) payable to each workman represented by the Decree Holder workmen

Union. It is further recorded that the Bailiff/Amin appointed by this Tribunal has duly executed the warrants of attachment of movable properties belonging to the

Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, mentioned therein. The Bailiff has executed the said attachment in accordance with law, following due procedure as contemplated under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and has filed Amin reports

before this Tribunal detailing the manner of execution. It is also recorded that in

compliance with the directions of this Tribunal, the Bailiff has returned the attachment warrants along with the movable attachment bonds, after leaving the attached movable properties in safe custody, entrusting the same to responsible officials of the Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, who have stood as custodians and sureties, undertaking not to alienate, remove, encumber or otherwise deal with the attached properties until further orders of this Tribunal and this Tribunal is satisfied with the same. Further, the attachment already effected over the movable properties mentioned in E.P., attachment schedule and the said properties shall continue to remain under attachment until the Award decretal amount is fully satisfied.

POINT No.6:

In the result, the Execution Petition is allowed. The JDr/ Municipal

Corporation, Tirupati, is hereby directed to implement the order of this Tribunal as

Awarded in I.D.No.190/2012, dated 14.08.2019. Further, it is directed that the attachment of movable properties belonging to the Municipal Corporation,

Tirupati, effected through the Bailiff of this Tribunal, as per E.P., attachment warrant Schedule is hereby confirmed. The attached movable properties shall remain under attachment until realization of the Award decretal amount of 13 �10,70,765/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty

Five only) to each workman. The Judgment Debtor/ Municipal Corporation,

Tirupati is further hereby directed to satisfy the Award decretal amount of �10,70,765/- to each workman within a period of SIX (06) MONTHS from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Decree Holder/ Workman Union shall be at liberty to take further execution steps, strictly in accordance with the procedure enunciated under Order XXI of CPC, for realization of the Award decretal amount. It is further directed that the attachment and any further execution proceedings shall be restricted only to the extent necessary for realization of the Award decretal amount only and shall not be excessive or disproportionate. No order as to costs.

Typed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 30 th day of January, 2026.

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR Petitioner:FOR Respondent:

-None- - None-

COURT WITNESS (C.W-1) K.Rajendran, Retired STO

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR Petitioner:

1Ex.W-1Dt.-Annexure showing wage payable to .each workman for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.07.2023.

2Ex.W-2Dt.14.08.2019Copy of Award of I.D.No.190/2012 .with the G.O.Rt.No.547 Labour employment Training & Factories (OP) Department dt.16.10.2019.

3Ex.W-3Dt.17.01.2022G.O.Ms.No.1Finance(PC-TA) .Department.

14 4Ex.W-4Dt.11.06.2013G.O.Ms.No.136Finance(PC-I) .Department.

5Ex.W-5Dt.26.10.2013G.O.Ms.No.294Finance(PC-I) .Department.

6Ex.W-6Dt.14.05.2014G.O.Ms.No.102Finance(PC-I) .Department.

7Ex.W-7Dt.9.10.2014G.O.Ms.No.198 Finance (HRM.V) .Department.

8Ex.W-8Dt.10.2.2016G.O.Ms.No.18 Finance (HR VI) .Department.

9Ex.W-9Dt.27.08.2016G.O.Ms.No.172 Finance (HR VI) .Department.

10.Ex.W-10Dt.3.2.2017G.O.Ms.No.16 Finance (HR VI) Department.

11.Ex.W-11Dt.11.08.2017G.O.Ms.No.140 Finance (HR VI) Department.

12.Ex.W-12Dt.28.02.2018G.O.Ms.No.27 Finance (HR VI) Department.

13.Ex.W-13Dt.17.09.2018G.O.Ms.No.150 Finance (PC and TA) Department.

14.Ex.W-14Dt.29.01.2019G.O.Ms.No.14 Finance (PC and TA) Department.

15.Ex.W-15Dt.04.11.2020G.O.Ms.No.94 Finance (PC&TA) Department.

16.Ex.W-16Dt.31.07.2021G.O.Ms.No.51 Finance (PC-TA) Department.

17.Ex.W-17Dt.01.05.2023G.O.Ms.No.66 Finance (PC-TA) Department.

FOR RESPONDENT:

-Nil- 15

DOCUMENTS MARKED THROUGH THE COURT COMMISSIONER (C.W-1) 1Ex.X-1Dt.25.5.2025Letter submitted by the Court commissioner enclosing arrears statements of 98 members. 2Ex.X-2Dt..04.2025Letter of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati to the Court Commissioner by enclosing EPF ledger copies of 91 Workmen 3Ex.X-3Dt.Copy of Outsourced Manpower Bill for the month of February 2025. 4Ex.X-4Dt.-Revised pay Scale 2022 of the Schedule-I with the Master scales

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Compared by:

Read by:

O.S.38 of 20151Family Court, ATP.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present:- Smt.G.Sridevi,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Addl.District Judge,

Ananthpuramu.

Friday, this the 15th day of September, 2023

Original Suit No.38/2015

Between:

Lakshmidevi w/o. Chikkanna Hindu, age 65 years, Cultivation, R/o. Golla Village, Kalyanadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist. … Plaintiff.

Vs.

1.K.Chinna Yerri Swamy, s/o. Ujjinaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, residing at Gollavillage,KalyanadurgMandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

2.Ramalakshmamma, w/o. Late Narayana, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, residing at Golla village, Kalyanadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

3.K.Sunandamma, w/o. K.Pedda yerrisway, Hindu, age 63 years, cultivation, residing at Gollavillage,KalyanadurgMandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

4K.Bharathi, w/o. Late K.Somasekhar, Hindu, age 45 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.no.181-4- 126, Near house of Thippeswamy, Parvathi nagar, Kalyanadurg, Ananthapuramu Dist.

5K.Tarun Teja, s/o. lae K.Somasekhar, Hindu, age about 21 years, Student, r/o.D.No.18- 04-126, near House of Thippeswamy, ParvathiNagar,Kalyanadurg, Ananthapuramu Dist.

6K.Ravi Teja, s/o. late K.Somasekhar, Hindu, age 20 yers, Student, R/o.D.No.18-4-126, Near House of Thippeswamy, Parvathi Nagar, Kalyanadurg, Ananthapuramu Dist.

7K.Jagannath, s/o. Pedda Yerriswamy, Hindu, age 45 years, Employee, D.No.6-4-741, 5th Cross, Behind SBH Bank, Venkata Rao Nagar, Ananthapruamu,

O.S.38 of 20152Family Court, ATP.

8.N.Vanaja, w/o. Lokesh, Hindu, age about 30 year, R/o. at Golla village, Kalyanadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

9K.Ravindra s/o. yerrappa, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, Golla village, Kalyanadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

10Pravhavathi, w/o. Of thimmaraju, Hindu, age about30years,cultivation,r/o. Gangavaram Village, Beluguppa Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

11Kuruba Anand s/o. Obulesappa, Hindu, age about 50 years, cultivation, r/o. Athmakur Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

12Kuruba Yerri Swamy, s/o. Obulesappa, aged about 55 years, Hindu, r/o. Athmakur Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

13Kuruba Bhagyamma, D/o.Obulesappa, w/o. Thippanna, age 61 years, Hindu, r/o.AthmakurVillageandMandal, Ananthapuramu District, 14K.Yasodamma, w/o.Chinna Yerri Swamy, aged 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o. Golla Post and village, Kalyanadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

15Kuruba Shakuntalamma, w/o. Mallappa, aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o. Penakalapeta Village, (Hanakanahal Village), Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

16Kuruba Virupakshi s/o. Obulesappa, age 60 years, Hindu, 17Kuruba Parthappa, s/o Obulesappa, age 40 years, Hindu, 18Kuruba Sivappa, s/o. Obulesappa, age 38 years, Hindu, 19Kuruba Errrakka, d/o. Obulesappa, age 55 years, Hindu, 20Kuruba Pedda Yerramma, D/o. Obulesappa, age 50 years, Hindu, 21Kuruba Chinna Yerramma, D/o. Obulesappa, age 48 years, Hindu,

O.S.38 of 20153Family Court, ATP.

22Kuruba Rojamma, d/o. Obulesappa, age 46 years, Hindu, 23Kuruba Ramanjinamma, d/o. Obulesappa, age 53 years, Hindu, 24Kuruba Sujhathamma, D/o. Obulesappa, age 52 years, Hindu, 25Kuruba Shyamalamma d/o. Obulesappa, age 50 years, Hindu, 15 to 25 are r/o. Borampalli Village & Post, Kalyanadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu.

(11 to 25 are added as per orders in

IA.No. 33/2020 Dt. 16-11-2021).

26K.Bharathamma, w/o. Late K.Ravindra, Major, Hindu, 27K.Usha Rani, d/o. Late K.Ravindra, Major, Hindu, 26 and 27 are R/o. Golla Village and Post, Kalyanadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

(26 and 27 are added as per orders in

IA.No.559/2021 Dt. 13-06-2022)

28S.Uma Mahesh s/o. China Yerriswamy, Hindu, age 38 years, Cultivation, Golla Village, Kalyanadurg Mandal, 29K.Bharathi w/o. Ravindra, Hindu, age 52 years,Cultivation,GollaVillage, Kalyanadurg Mandal, 30M.Dadhavi d/o. Chinna yerriswamy, Hindu, age 48 years, Cultivation, Golla Village, Kalyanadurg Mandal, 31K.Bhagyamma w/o. K.Anand, Hindu, 50 years, Culivation, Atmakur Village, Atmakur Mandal, 32K.Prabhavathi w/o. G. Thimaraju, Hindu, 45 years, Hose Wife, Beluguppa Village & Mandal,

O.S.38 of 20154Family Court, ATP.

33K.Umadevi, w/o. K.Umesh, age 40 years, Hindu,HouseWife,Penukalapadu (Hanakanahal) Village, Kanekal Mandal,.

(28 to 33 are added as per orders in

IA.26/2023 Dt. 26-02-2023).

34Pillala Nagalakshmi w/o. Kuruba Yerriswamy, Hindu, age 50 years, House-wife, Atmakur

(m), 35Pillala Maruthi s/o. Kuruba Yerriswamy, Hindu, age 30 years, Cultivation, Atmakur Mandal, (34 and 35 are added as per orders in

IA.109/2023 Dt 20-03-2023. … Defendants.

This suit coming on 01-09-2023 for final hearing before this court in the presence of Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendants are having been remained ex-parte, D.1 and D.12 are died, and on hearing on both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed, by the plaintiff, for partition and separate possession of 3/25th share in the plaint schedule properties and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaint schedule property and other properties are the joint family properties of Late Ujjanappa, he got four sons and a daughter. The said

Ujjanappa and his sons constituted members of Hindu Joint family having equal right in the property. Three sons of Unnajappa are no more. The 1st

Defendant is one of the son of said Ujjanappa.

One of the son of Ujjannappa namely Anjineya died and the 2nd defendant is the daughter of said Anjineya. Another son by name Pedda Yerri swamy also died, the 3rd defendant-Sunandamma is his wife, 7th defendant-

Jagannath is his son, Another son Somasekhar is also no more, The D.4 to D.6 are the legal heirs of Somasekhar.

O.S.38 of 20155Family Court, ATP.

The another son of Ujjanappa by name Chikkanna is also died on 18-08- 2009, the plaintiff is the wife of said Chikkanna, D.8 is the daughter of said

Chikkanna. The daughter of Ujjanappa namely Vannuramma is no more and 9th defendant is the sole representative of said Vannuramma.

It is further submitted that Ujjanappa and his sons had 1/5th share each in the plaint schedule properties. After the death of Ujjinappa his 1/5th share devolved on his four sons and daughter. Thus, each of the son became entitled to 6/25th share and the daughter Vannuramma became entitled to 1/25th share. Out of the 6/25th share of Chikkanna, the plaintiff is entitled to 3/25th share and the 8th defendant is entitled to 3/25th share. D.1 and D.2 are entitled to 6/25th share, D.4 to D.7 together are entitled 6/25th share. D.9 became entitled 1/25th share on the death of his mother. All the parties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties, though they are residing separately having separate means, the properties are not partitioned and all the properties till continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the parties.

It is further submitted that Ujinappa died long back and his daughters are not entitled for any share in the plaint schedule property. The daughters of Ujjinappa also no more. One of the daughters of Uninappa by name

Thippamma died leaving behind D.11 to D.14 as her legal heirs. Another daughter of Ujjinappa by name Anjinamma died leaving behind the D.15 to

D.25 as her legal heirs. Though, D.11 to D.25 have no share in the plaint schedule properties the are added in this suit as proforma parties.

It is further contended that D.9 died on 20-07-2020 leaving his D.26 (wife) and D.27 ( daughter) as his legal heirs. Hence, the share of D.9 in

Plaint schedule property devolved on D.26 and D.27.

It is further contended that D.1 died leaving behind him D.28 to D.33 as legal representatives and they have succeeded to his estate. D.12 died

O.S.38 of 20156Family Court, ATP.

leaving behind him D.34 and D.35 as legal representatives and they have succeeded to his estate.

It is further contended that there are misunderstandings arose between the parties and the defendants are acting adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. They are trying to create fictitious documents in favour of the third parties. The plaintiff has came to know that D.10 has purchased a portion of the property. Inspite of her purchase the properties continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the parties. The alleged transaction is not binding on the plaintiff, D.10 is a necessary party to the suit. Hence, plaintiff has demanded the defendants for partition and separate possession of her 3/25th share in the plaint schedule properties, but the defendants postponing the same. Hence, the suit.

3.To resist the claim of the plaintiff, D.1 filed his written statement on 30- 10-2015.

4.The brief averments of the written statement of D.1 are as follows.

The relationship as set up in para 1 to 5 are true and correct. But, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit and genealogy fled showing the parties to the suit is not correct. The suit properties and some other properties were joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants.

All the properties divided long back orally and that each party enjoying the properties got allotted to their share and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of same and the said oral partition acted upon, hence suit filed for partition and separate possession of alleged plaintiff’s 3/25th share will not arise.

It is contended that Ujinappa is having 4 sons and three daughters.

Even during the life time of Unninappa, there was oral partition in among the

O.S.38 of 20157Family Court, ATP.

D.1, Anjanaiah, Pedda Yerriswamy, Vannuramma, and Chikkanna the husband of the plaintiff, Thippamma and Anjinamma. The plaintiff is not clear regarding identification and location of some of the properties i.e., Item No.1 , 8, 7, 3, 6, 4 and 10, as mentioned in the plaint. Item No.1 of th plaint schedule is total extent of Ac.27-30 cents in Sy. No.251-1 but not Ac.28-30,

Item No.8 is the dilapidated house and there is no house. The said Item No.8 had been divided into 3 parts and Eastern portion got allotted to the 1st defendant and remaining portion divided into two portions and same was allotted to Late Pedda Yerriswamy and Late Chikkanna the husband of plaintiff. Item No.7 house also divided into 3 parts and D.1’s family is residing in western portion and plaintiff being wife of late Chikkanna is in possession of the building at North-East and D.3 to D.7 are residing at Southern side of the building being legal heirs of Pedda Yerriswamy.

Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.27.30 cents and out of it Ac.24-30 got alloted to the D.1 in oral partition and the plaintiff’s husband late Chikkanna got allotted an extent of Ac.3.00 in Item No.1 and

Item No.3 and Item No.2 to his share. Item No.5 and 6 are consisting an extnt of Ac.0.43 ½ cents is hayrick yard and the same is kept in joint by the plaintiff’s husband Chikkanna and D.1 and Late Pedda Yerriswamy.

Item No.4 out Ac.25.88 an extent of Ac.11.68 cents got allotted to the share of D.1 and an extent of ac.11.50 cents allotted to share of Late

Anjinaiah and an extent of Ac.2.70 cents to share of Late Pedda Yerriswamy.

Item No.10 an extent of Ac.5-00 allotted to the late Anjineya and he gifted the same to his daughter D.2 under registered gift deed dated 15-05-1993 and she was in possession and enjoyment of same. Remaining extent got allotted to Late Pedda Yerriswamy and he is no more and the said extent is kept in the name of his wife D.3.

O.S.38 of 20158Family Court, ATP.

Item No.11 got allotted to Late Pedda Yerriswamy in oral partition and now the same is in joint possession and enjoyment of D.3 to D.7. Item No.12 an extent of Ac.3.20 got allotted to late Anjaneya and the said extent is in possession and enjoyment of D.2. In Item No.13 an ext4ent of Ac.6-50 cents got allotted to Pedda Yerriswamy and the same is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of D.3 to D.7. Item No.15 got allotted to late Anjaneya and the same is possession and enjoyment of D.2 and the same mutated in his name.

Item No.16 an extent of Ac.4.48 cents got allotted to the Late Thipamma and remaining Ac.4.48 cents got allotted to Late Anjinamma and their legal heirs in possession and enjoyment of the same. Item No.16 is the barren land and there is no cultivation by the legal heirs of Thippamma and Anjanamma.

Item No.9 an extent of Ac.6.53 cents in item No.12 and an extent of Ac.3.20 cents in Item No.13 and an extent of Ac.3.34 cents and Item No.14 got allotted to Late Vannuramma and all the said extents are in possession and enjoyment of D.9 s/o. late Vannuramma.

Since, there is no joint family, questioning of misunderstanding between the parties will not arise and acting adverse to the interest of the plaintiff will not arise. An extent of Ac.3.23 in Item No.13 got alloted to

Vannuramma had been sold to D.9-Ravindra to D.10-Prabhavathi under registered sale deed dt. 16-08-2012. Item No.15 and landed property got allotted to Late Anjaneya had been gifted by him during his life time under

Registered Gift deed dated 15-05-1993 in favbour of D.2 and hr son Mahes.

Late Chikkanna himself executed registered Gift deed dated 12-08-2009 in favour of N.Vanaja regarding the property got allotted to him, hence it is strange to allege that the plaintiff recently came to know that the 10th defendant purchase portion of the property. The plaintiff is well aware and alive of the fact of the sale in favour of D.10 by D.9 and it is binding on all parties. Since there was already oral partition, the question of conceding

O.S.38 of 20159Family Court, ATP.

right of the plaintiff and postponing for partition and separate possession will not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.Based on the pleadings, my learned predecessor in the office has framed the following issues for trial:- (1)Whether all the plaint schedule properties are

available for partition among the plaintiff and

defendants?

(2)Whether the previous oral partition pleaded by

Defendant No.1 is true, valid and binding on

plaintiff and other parties?

(3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and

separate possession in-respect of plaint schedule

properties ? If so what relief?

(4)What is the result of the suit?

6.On framing the issues, amendments of plaint is effected as per orders in IA.33/2020 dated 16-11-2021 by adding D.11 to D.25, IA.559/2021 dated 13-06-2022 by adding D.26 and D.27, IA.559/2021 dated 13-06-2022 by adding D.28 to D.33 and IA.109/2023 dated 20-03-2023 by adding D.34 and

D.35 and neat copies of plaints are also filed. But the said defendants are set- exarte.

7. On behalf of the plaintiff-Lakshmidevi, she herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1-Genealogy Tree. One third party to the suit by name

K.Mahesh examined as PW.2.

8.On the other hand, as per the docket order dated 28-03-2023 D.1, D.12 died and other defendants remained exparte.

9. Heard the arguments of plaintiff’s counsel.

ISSUES NOs.1 to 3:

O.S.38 of 201510Family Court, ATP.

10. As stated supra by the both parties, to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff -K.Lakshmidevi, filed her chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination as

PW.1, wherein, she reiterated the same facts as narrated in the plaint averments. On 03-04-2023, PW.1 present for cross-examination. As the defendants were set ex-parte in the suit, Cross of PW.1 is treated as nil.

11.To support the contention of the plaintiff, one K.Mahesh, who is third party to the suit filed his chief affidavit as PW.2 by supporting the contents of plaintiff stating that he know the plaintiff and defendants. Plaint schedule properties and other properties are the joint family properties of Late

Ujjinappa. The said Ujjinappa had got four sons and a daughter. Three of the sons of Ujjinappa are no more. D.1 is one of the son of Ujjinappa. One of the sons of Ujjinappa, by name Anjineya died and the 2nd defendant is the daughter of said Anjineya. Another Son by name Pedda Yerriswamy is also no more. D.3 Sunandamma is his wife. One of the sons of Pedda Yerriswamy by name Somasekhar is also no more. The D.4 to D.6 are the legal heirs of

Somasekhar. D.7 is another of son of Pedda Yerriswamy. D.3 to D.6 represent the estate of Pedda Yerriswami. The another son of Ujjinappa by name

Chikkanna is also no more and Plaintiff is the wife of said Chikkanna. D.8 is the daughter of Chikkanna. As already submitted Unninappa had a daughter by name Vannuramma and she is no more. D.9 is the sole representative of said Vannuramma. The plaintiff and D.8 are entitled for share in the properties. On 06-07-2023, Pw.2 present for cross-examination. As the defendants were set ex-parte in the suit, Cross of PW.2 is treated as nil and the counsel for the plaintiff reported no further evidence. Plaintiff side evidence is closed. Heard the arguments of plaintiff’s counsel.

O.S.38 of 201511Family Court, ATP.

12. Since the defendants did not appear before the Court and their side evidence is closed.

13. Perused the evidence of PW.1 K.Lakshmidevi and PW.2.Mahesh,

Ex.A.1-Genealogy, it is disclosed that the husband of plaintiff namely

Chikkanna is the son of Ujjinappa who is original owner of plaint schedule properties and all the suit properties are ancestral properties. To disprove the claim of the plaintiff, none of the defendants contested the suit and they were set-exparte, D.1 and D.12 died. Except filing of Ex.A.1 Genealogy Tree, the plaintiff did not file any supportive documents pertaining to the schedule properties and her relationship with the defendants. Further the plaintiff did not file any documents to prove that her husband Chikkanna, who is the son of Ujjinappa, who is original owner of plaint schedule properties and all the suit properties are ancestral properties. Mere examining third party is also not sufficient until relevant documents supported the version of the plaintiff as P.W.1 and P.W.2 on her behalf.

14. Therefore, this court is of opinion that without any supportive documents pertaining to the schedule property is the ancestral property of

Unjinappa and he is the owner of the property and mere basing on Ex.A1

Genealogy Tree, a partition cannot be granted. Hence, the suit is dismissed.

Issue No.4:

15. In the result, the suit is dismissed with no costs.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15 th day of September, 2023.

Sd/- G. SRIDEVI

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VII Addl. District Judge,

Anantapuramu.

O.S.38 of 201512Family Court, ATP.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiffs:- Defendants:-

PW.1: K.Lakshmidevi, -None- P.W.2:- K.Mahesh.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFs

Ex.A.1:Genealogy Tree.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:

-Nil -

Sd/- G.SRIDEVI

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VII Addl. District Judge, Anantapuramu.