APHC010180442012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25079/2012 Between: M. A. N. Patrudu, E. 454857, ...PETITIONER AND The A P S R T C Rep By Its and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 28.03.2012, whereby the 4th respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings were passed without appreciating the true facts. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as a motor mechanic and was initially appointed as a cleaner in the year 1986. However, on 12.02.2011, the security at the out-gate checked the bag belonging 2 to the petitioner and found the petitioner had concealed a JEI bearing. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the president of the employees’ union at the depot where he was working and had filed a complaint against the staff, DYCME, contractors and others to the depot manager. It is submitted that some of the employees, who bore a grudge against the petitioner had secretly placed the JEI bearing in the petitioner’s bag. An enquiry was conducted on the said allegation and based on the enquiry report, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bearing, which is alleged to have been stolen, was of no value as it was a used one and had not been put to use by the respondents on account of changes in technology. It is submitted that the said item is almost a scrap item. 3. The learned counsel further submits that the punishment of removal from service on Tribunal grounds is highly disproportionate. 4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents conducted a detailed enquiry, during which it was found that the petitioner tried to commit theft of a 3 bearing from the garage of the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner has taken a plea that someone might have placed the bearing in his bag without the knowledge of the petitioner was not convincing to the enquiry officer. Therefore, the punishment, which was deemed appropriate, was imposed on the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings without approaching the Labour Court. The Labour Court is the competent authority to adjudicate the issue on its merits to give a finding on the proportionality of the punishment. The challenge to the impugned proceedings by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 06.02.2025 NKA 4 34 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.25079 of 2012 Date: 06.02.2025 NKA