APSRTC & ORS. versus G. KONDAL RAO

APSRTC & ORS. versus G. KONDAL RAO

The High Court erred by mechanically relying on its earlier judgment from Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012, without regard to the fact that in this case the respondent was terminated after a departmental enquiry and charges of misconduct were proved. Continuity of service can only be granted if the order of termination is set aside, which was not done in this case. Therefore, the grant of continuity and re-engagement was unsustainable.

Parties
Appellant: APSRTC & ORS.; Respondent: G. Kondal Rao
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Division Bench of High Court's Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Termination, Re Engagement, Continuity of Service, Departmental Enquiry, Misconduct
Service Law Termination Re Engagement Continuity of Service Departmental Enquiry Misconduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

APSRTC & ORS.

Appellant

G. Kondal Rao

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Division Bench of High Court's Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-engagement and continuity of service after termination following departmental enquiry for misconduct
  2. 2 Whether benefit of continuity of service can be granted without setting aside the termination order

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred by mechanically relying on its earlier judgment from Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012, without regard to the fact that in this case the respondent was terminated after a departmental enquiry and charges of misconduct were proved. Continuity of service can only be granted if the order of termination is set aside, which was not done in this case. Therefore, the grant of continuity and re-engagement was unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 in Writ Appeal No.246 of 2013 set aside
  • Judgment and order in Writ Petition No.25970 of 2012 set aside