K.L.NARAYANAMMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. v. M.D., APSRTC., HYDERABAD & ANOTHER
WP/31222/2011 · 2025-02-19
Harinath N
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50323 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50323 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010653642011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31222/2011
Between: K.l.narayanamma, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER
AND
M D Apsrtc Hyderabad Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P LAKSHMANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
2. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC
The Court made the following:
The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 13.09.2011, whereby the respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner together with all consequently benefits. 2. The petitioner in the affidavit submits that while working as a conductor, the petitioner was charged with cash and ticket
2
irregularity on 03.12.2010, and that an enquiry was initiated. Soon after initiation of the enquiry, the petitioner could not personally attend the enquiry and submitted sick certificate. The petitioner also challenged the order of suspension dated 10.12.2001 and filed W.P.No.3439 of 2011. 3. This Court disposed off the writ petition on 29.03.2011 and directed the respondents to complete the enquiry by the end of April 2011. The 2nd respondent fixed the date of enquiry and served notice on the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the notice was served beyond the date fixed for enquiry stage. The 2nd notice was served on the petition on 24.02.2011. The petitioner submitted a sick certificate to obtain the same from the Government Hospital, Avanigadda. 4. The petitioner further submitted the sick certificates for the periods 25.02.2011 to 06.03.2011 and 23.02.2011 to 05.04.2011. On account of non-representation of the petitioner before the enquiry authorities, the enquiry report was submitted and a show cause notice for the removal of the petitioner from service was served on her. It is also submitted in the affidavit that the petitioner’s husband was also suffering from heart-related problems, and that she had to take care of him as well. 3
5. The respondents conducted the enquiry ex-parte, and the show cause notice proposing removal from service was served on the petitioner. The respondents passed the impugned proceedings dated 25.07.2011. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15895 of 2011. 6.
This Court allowed the writ petition on 11.08.2011, set aside the impugned proceedings dated 15.07.2011, and directed the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted 15 days’ time to submit her explanation to the show cause notice. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the petitioner submitted her explanation, and the respondents passed the impugned proceedings dated 30.09.2011, imposing the punishment of removal from service. 7. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned proceedings dated 30.09.2011. 8. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, submits that the petitioner was involved in cash and ticket irregularities during her career from 1996 to 2010, as many as 16 times, and have detailed the various incidents of the involvement of the petitioner in cash and ticket irregularities and the punishments imposed for each such act. 4
9. It is submitted by the learned Standing counsel that the petitioner was involved in a cash and ticket irregularity on 03.12.2010 as well, and an enquiry was conducted. The petitioner failed to attend the enquiry, and an ex parte enquiry was conducted initially. However, on the directions of this Court, the petitioner was granted one more opportunity to submitted her explanation. Thereafter, upon conducting the enquiry, the impugned proceedings were passed. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel by the respondent that the petitioner had a habitual tendency of involving herself in cash and ticket irregularities with a mala fide intension. On 03.12.2010, the petitioner was found to have reissued 9 tickets of Rs.30/- each to several passengers, thereby causing financial loss to the respondent corporation. Adequate evidence was available to hold the petitioner responsible for the misconduct of cash and ticket irregularity. 11. Adequate opportunity was also given to the petitioner to submit her explanation and to participate in the enquiry. The petitioner absented herself from the enquiry and relied upon the medical certificates to substantiate her unauthorized absence from enquiry.
The impugned proceedings were issued in
5
compliance of with the directions of this Court in C.C.No.1721 of 2011, and a fresh enquiry was accordingly conducted. 12. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent, and after verifying the record, the impugned proceedings enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authorities within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner has not preferred any appeal before the competent authority, and instead approached this Court. 13. The appropriate forum to decide on the proportionality of the punishment would be the Labour Court. The proper form for redressing the grievance of the petitioner would be the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which would be empowered to consider the issue on merits and pass a detailed order after examining the entire evidence. 14. The petitioner, having not chosen to approach the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, chose instead to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition. This Court cannot reassess the evidence adduced before the disciplinary authorities and finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 6
15. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 20.02.2025 NKA
7
223 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.31222 of 2011
Date: 20.02.2025
NKA