APHC010270612019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 12722/2019 Between: P SRINIVASU, S/O LATE SANNI BABU, 53 YEARS, R454968, MECHANIC, D.NO.38-11-11/11, GOLLA STREET, MARRIPALEM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. GAJUWAKA DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. CHAIRMAN CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM-LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Certiorari calling for the record relating to the impugned award dated 04.04.2019 made in I.D.No.33/2016 on the file of 2nd Respondent- Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, set aside the same as arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law and consequently reckon petitioner's reinstatement as reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and full back wages, setting aside the appellate order to that extent, in the interest of justice.” 2 2. Heard Sri A.G.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, the Petitioner is a Mechanic in APSRTC. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner suffered from severe Asthma, as such, he could not attend the duty from 20.07.2005 to 03.08.2005. The Petitioner has submitted the medical certificate issued by King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Learned counsel would further submit that, for the unauthorized absence of the Petitioner, without considering the genuineness of the medical certificate issued by King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, proceedings were initiated for enquiry. Show-Cause notice was also issued to the Petitioner for which, the Petitioner had submitted his explanation stating that he is a chronic Asthama patient. Learned counsel would further submit that the Enquiry Officer held that the sick certificate should be submitted within 48 hours. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner continued in employment and thereafter, he could not attend the duties again from 19.09.2005. Learned counsel would submit that, simply basing on the report of the Assistant Engineer, dated 06.10.2005, without conducting enquiry and without giving any opportunity, removed the Petitioner from services. It is further submitted that, no charges were framed against the Petitioner. The Petitioner approached the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority considering the service of the Petitioner, directed reinstatement of the Petitioner into service afresh duly treating the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement as not on duty. 3 Learned counsel would further submit that, such type of punishment is not enumerated under the Regulations. It is submitted that, the Petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing a petition and the same was dismissed by the Labour Court with nil award. Now the salary of the Petitioner is fixed as a new employee. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. In the counter filed before the Labour Court, the Respondent has admitted the fact that the Petitioner was removed from service taking into consideration the subsequent allegations made on 06.10.2005 for which neither a charge sheet was issued nor enquiry was conducted. The action was taken on the enquiry report. Admittedly, King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam is also a Government Hospital. The only thing is that, the Petitioner could not submit his sick certificate within 48 hours from his absence. The fact remains is that, the Petitioner is a Chronic Asthama patient and his version is supported by the certificate issued by King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The Respondent-Authorities should have taken into consideration of the same while passing such type of orders. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the punishment imposed against the Petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the individual. 6. In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned award dated 04.04.2019 made in I.D.No.33/2016 on the file of 2nd Respondent- Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 4 Respondents are directed to treat the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement as leave period and to pay the consequential benefits to the Petitioner for such period. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:19.03.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.12722 of 2019 Dt.19.03.2025 Dinesh