1 APHC010672772012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 19577/2012 Between: Ch. A.swamy, ...PETITIONER AND The Apsrtc Rep By Its Managing Director Mushirabad and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) The Court made the following: ORDER This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in without issuing any fresh charge sheet and not conducting any enquiry and by treating the earlier absence as misconduct punishing the petitioner for life time by issuing removal order vide Proc.No.SA/11823/VS ONSP03, Dt 25.11.2004 which was confirmed by the Appellate and Review authorities vide proc No.AD/(V&S)19(1)/VSP/06, Dt.10.4.2006 2 and Proc No.SD/19(2)/07-P0-II, Dt 21.6.2007 is unjust and against to the principles of natural justice disproportionate to the alleged absence contrary to well established principles of law and as such the punishment order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner into service and to pay the back wages along with all consequential benefits and pass…”. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner herein was appointed as security guard in the year 1988 and while he was working as Gajuwaka Depot he was absented for duties from 14.08.2003 to 21.11.2003. After conducting enquiry, a show-cause notice of removal was issued on 19.01.2004. The petitioner applied for leave on 18.11.2004 for a period of 4 days and the same was granted. When the petitioner went to the Depot on 22.11.2004, the depot concerned directed the Driver to meet the DM and as the DM is on route survey, he could not met the DM. Again on 23.11.2004, the petitioner approached the DM and as the employees in the depot came to him for asking their demands, he was not allowed to meet the DM. On 07.12.2005 the DM is on weekly off and the DM is on leave on 24.11.2004. Hence, when the petitioner went to the office of the DM on 25.11.2004 he was informed that he was removed from service and the 4th respondent has passed the impugned removal order vide proceedings No.SA/118(23)/V & SO/VSP/03, dated 25.11.2004. Thereafter, the said order was confirmed by the appellate and review authorities vide Proc.No.AD/(V&S)19(1)/VSP/06, dated 10.04.2006 and Proc.No.SD1/19(2)/07-PO-II, dated 21.06.2007. Without issuing any fresh charge sheet and not conducting any enquiry for the subsequent charge after 3 show-cause notice, the impugned punishment is imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was removed from services for his unauthorized absence for his duties from 14.08.2003 to 21.11.2003 after observing all the procedures and principles of natural justice. Hence, the question of taking action against the petitioner without issuing fresh charge sheet and not conducting any enquiry for the subsequent charge after show- cause notice and by treating the earlier absence punishing petitioner for a life time does not arise as he was removed from service for his authorized absence for is duties from 14.08.2003 to 21.11.2003. As the enquiry officer followed all the principles of natural justice besides giving all the opportunities to the petitioner to defend himself. Hence, the said enquiry report was fair and proper but not stage enquiry as alleged by the petitioner. The contention that the unauthorized absence is not treated as misconduct, but the principles of natural justice should be complied with before the employer precedes to remove the services of an employee. As per Regulation 9 sub-clause 2(e) or 2(f) of APSRTC (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967, an employee shall be liable to be removed from service for his irregular attendance or absenting himself. Hence, the unauthorized absence from his duties from 14.08.2003 to 21.11.2003 by the petitioner comes under the above said regulation. Basing on that, the petitioner was removed from service. 4 It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is very irregular from duties frequently and is a chronic absentee and not interested to work. In the year 2000, he worked only 244 days and remaining 121 days absented. In the year 2001, he worked 123 days only and remaining 242 days absented. In the year 2002, he worked only 157 days and the remaining 208 days absented. In the year 2003 (upto 22.11.2003) he worked only 160 days and the remaining 165 days absented. For the above unauthorized absenteeism, 7 disciplinary cases prepared and awarded postponement of annual increment for a period of 4 years without cumulative effect. Hence, requests to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Heard Mr S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to family conditions, the petitioner frequently applied for leave, but the depot supervisors are quite reluctant to sanction leave. Hence, the Depot Manager issued charge sheet and thereafter, the Depot Manager taken him into duty after issuance of show-cause notice on 19.01.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for 4 days leave on 18.11.2004 and the same was granted. But, surprisingly, without having material evidence, the enquiry officer mechanically submitted a report holding guilty of charges against the petitioner and the said report was not furnished to the petitioner. He further submits that the unauthorized absence shall not be treated as misconduct and the authorities 5 cannot impose capital punishment of removal from service without conducting proper enquiry. 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.769 of 2005, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “We have no hesitation to observe that in the absence of a specific charge for the alleged unauthorized absence for the period from 16.10.2004 to 19.10.2004, passing of the proceedings impugned by taking into consideration the unauthorized absence for the said period without any charge or enquiry, amounts to depriving the opportunity of the delinquent to defend his case and it also amounts to arbitrariness. Accordingly, the removal order was set aside”. Relying on the above decision of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing any fresh charge sheet and without conducting any enquiry, the respondents has passed the impugned removal order, vide Proc.No.SA/118(23)/V&S.O/VSP-03, dated 25.11.2004 which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to pass appropriate orders. 7. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioner is an regularly absentee and he was unauthorizedly absented for his duties from 14.08.2003 to 21.11.2003 and further, the petitioner worked only 160 days in the year 2003. Hence, 7 disciplinary cases levelled against the petitioner and awarded postponement 6 of annual increment for a period of 4 years. He further submits that the enquiry officer followed all the principles of natural justice. As per Regulation 9 sub- clause 2(e) or 2(f) of APSRTC (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967, an employee shall be liable to be removed from service for his irregular attendance. Basing on the above regulation, the petitioner was removed from service vide Proc.No.SA/118(23)/V&S.O/VSP-03, dated 25.11.2004. Though the petitioner has approached appellate and review authorities, the dismissal order was confirmed. Hence, the learned Standing Counsel requests to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. On perusal of the record, it appears that the enquiry officer followed all the principles of natural justice besides giving all the opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case. It also appears that the petitioner is a chronic absentee and has not discharged his duties on several occasions. Though disciplinary actions were taken and on 13 occasions his annual increments were deferred, without changing his mindset, the petitioner is regularly absenting his duties. Further, it is observed that the orders passed by the appellate and review authority are of 2006 and 2007 years respectively. But, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2012 i.e., after lapse of five (05) years of passing of the orders by the appellate and the review authority. 7 This Court further observed that, the petitioner repeatedly absented for his duties on several occasions. Though disciplinary actions were taken by the respondents, no change in his attitude and further on 13 occasions his request for annual increments was deferred. It is further observed that the appellate authority and revision authority orders were passed in the year 2006 and 2007 respectively but the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2012 i.e., after lapse of 5 years. Moreover, the petitioner has not explained any reasons for the said delay for fling the present Writ Petition. it clearly establishes that latches on the part of the petitioner. 10. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the case of the petitioner is not considerable and there are no merits to entertain the present Writ Petition and liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 10 .04.2025 TM/Gvl 8