•u/ 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVyj^^^jj (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ ^ i 1 Ik- ^0 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA .X' WRIT PETITION NO: 39239 OF 2018 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tuni East Godavari District.^ The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 1. 2. 3. ...Petitioners^ AND 1. V.S.Babu, E.No. 455746 Re. through the Deputy Secretary APSRTC Employees Union Kakinada, East Godavari district'-^ The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, The Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Visakhapatnam v../ 2. ...Respondents Petition under Article 2^ of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to ID No.29/2013 dated 03.0Y^018 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt No.109 dated 13^3^018 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in ID No.29/2013 dated ; 03.01.2018 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of writ petition. U-"'' Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) U--’ Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A K KISHORE REDDY The Court made the following order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 39239 OF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to ID No.29/2013 dated 03.01.2018 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.109 dated 13.03.2018 and quash the same as the same is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. ” When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for Petitioner/APSRTC would submit that Respondent No.1 is working as a Driver inAPSRTC. He was unauthorizedly absent from 18.09.2005 to 20.09.2005. It is further submitted that disciplinary action has been initiated against Respondent No.1 for the unauthorized absence, wherein, he was found guilty and was imposed with punishment of removal from service. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.1 preferred appeal and the same was rejected. He preferred review, wherein, the order of removal from service was modified to reduction of two annual increments with cumulative 2. effect. Challenging the same. Respondent No.1 preferred I.D.No.29/2013 and the same was allowed setting aside the impugned order of punishment imposed against Respondent No.1. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 was unauthorizedly absent from the duties for different periods. In such 2 circumstances, interference of Industrial Tribunal in I.D No.29/2013 is unwarranted. 3. None represented for Respondents. 4. Considering the submissions made and a keen perusal of the impugned award would show that,, without framing any charge and without conducting any enquiry, the Corporation has included every such unauthorized absence and by taking into consideration of such periods, imposed punishment which is not tenable under law. The learned Tribunal in its Order dated 03.01.2018 in I.D.No.29 of 2013 held that a separate charge has to be framed and a separate enquiry has to be conducted for each unauthorized absence and a punishment cannot be imposed for unauthorized absence without there being any charge of enquiry under these circumstances, the action taken by the APSRTC shows that they have not followed the procedure as per law and it is in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Tribunal further held that, the enquiry report shows that the enquiry was conducted for the charge of unauthorized absence from 18.09.2005 to 20.09.2005 and not for the subsequent period. But basing on the report the proceedings were issued by the Depot Manager terminating the Petitioner from services by taking into consideration of subsequent unauthorized absence for which no charge is framed and no enquiry has been conducted. While holding so, the learned Tribunal set aside the punishment imposed against Respondent No.1 herein. an 3 In the light of the abovementioned, circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned awards doe not brook any interference of this Court. The writ petition lacks merit and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to 5. 6. costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Deputy Secretary APSRTC Employees, V.S.Babu, E.No. 455746 Union Kakinada, East Godavari district 2. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, The Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Visakhapatnam 3. One CC to Sri Vipod Kumar Tarl'ada, (SC for APSRTC) [OPUC] 4. One CC to'Sri A K Kis'hore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copiel 1 t . . RAM HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ^ 2 1 MAY 2025 Current section .' \sSSaPATai^^ ORDER WP.No.39239 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS