ORDER
1. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as ‘the APSRTC) on 25th May, 1983. A charge sheet was issued in respect of certain charges on 6th June, 1983 and his services were terminated on 20th June, 1983. Thereafter, the APSRTC appointed the petitioner on daily wage basis on 14th August, 1987. The respondent Corporation then issued a charge-sheet dated 17th August, 1987 in respect of alleged misconduct in the service of the petitioner before the termination, dated 20th June, 1983 above mentioned and the charges were more or less the same as contained in the earlier charge memo dated 6th June, 1983. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and a second show cause notice was issued on 8th February, 1989 proposing the removal of the petitioner. The petitioner approached this court at that stage for quashing of the 2nd show cause notice, dt. 8th February, 1989 contending that the respondent-Corporation has no authority to conduct enquiry in respect of charges which are relatable to the period prior to the earlier termination, dated 20th June, 1983.
2. If one takes the facts as stated above, it would certainly appear that the respondent-Corporation has no jurisdiction to conduct enquiry in respect of the charges relating to a period prior to the earlier order of termination dated 20th June, 1983 but on facts the position is slightly different.
3. Whatever may be the justification or otherwise for the previous termination, dated 20th June, 1983, the position is that thereafter, the petitioner has been re-engaged in the service of the respondent-Corporation on daily wage basis on 14th August, 1987 as stated above. The material portion of the said order of appointment is important. It will be useful to refer to the same :
“In terms of the letter cited Sri Ch. Laxminarayana, D. No. 2121/Ex-Canal Conductor, is hereby re-engaged on daily wage basis at Rs. 33/- per day with effect from 14th August, 1987 at Korutla Deport subject to the following conditions.
Terms and conditions :
1. He is not entitled to any financial benefits in the past service.
2. His resumption of duty on daily wage basis is without prejudice to the disciplinary action being taken against him by the competent authority for the allegations framed against him while he was working at Korutla Depot.
4. It will be noticed that the fresh employment that was offered to the petitioner was subject to various terms and conditions, one of which was that the employer should be entitled to take disciplinary action in respect of the petitioner’s previous service. It was open to the petitioner therefore either to accept the said terms and conditions or not to accept them. It is not stated before me that the said terms and conditions are in any way illegal under any provision of law or of the Constitution. In fact, no such point has been raised in the writ petition that any of these terms are opposed to public policy.
5. If, therefore, the petitioner had consented to a fresh engagement for service and accepted, by consent, for reopening of the earlier enquiry, the petitioner cannot complain. While it is true that once the relationship of master and servant under the previous engagement has come to an end by termination, no disciplinary action could be taken in respect of any misconduct relatable to the period, it would certainly be open to the petitioner to consent to such reopening as part of consideration for fresh re-engagement four years later. I am of the view the no question of jurisdiction arises as the consent of the petitioner has cured the defect, if any.
6. It may also be noted that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry which took place after his re-engagement and the petitioner has approached this court at the stage of 2nd show cause notice. For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be quashed and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
