lVl.Shankar Rao v. 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI PANAKANTI SATISH KUMAR, Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: GP FOR LABOUR SC FOR TGSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU R/ JESHWAR RAO WRIT PEf,ITION No.7O9 of 2())8 ORDER: The petitioner filed the present vrit petition aggrieved by the Award, dated 29.09.20 )5 passed in I.D.No.128 of 2OO2 by the Industrial 'I'ibunal-cum- Labour Court at Warangal

2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, lear red counsel appearing for the petitioner and the lear red Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows (a) The petitioner was aPPointed : s a Driver on daily wage basis in the year 1992, anc his services were later regularized in the year L997 f ince then, he has been discharging his duties vithout any complaint. During the month of Decer:l rcr 1999, he suffered ill-health due to jaundice and I 'as unable to \l\i - 2 attend his duties. He reported the same to the Depot Supervisor, who did not grant any leave. (b) The petitioner underwent Ayurvedic treatment at Tena-li and sent his leave letter along with a medical certificate. As his health condition did not permit him to attend duty as a Driver, he remained absent and informed the sarne to the Depot Supervisor. Though a notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the conduct of an enquiry, he could not attend the enquiry as he was out of station and did not submit any reply. Consequently, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on O9'O2'2OOO' Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice and hnally passed order dated 01'03'2000, removing the petitioner from service. (c) Aggrieved by the order, dated 01.03.2000, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd 3 respond'ent' The 3rd respondent' vide procr: 'dings dated 02.Og.2OO2, rejected the appeal' I rrther aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a review be i re the 2nd respondent, who also rejected the revi'l v vide order, dated O7' ll'2OO2' Challenging the ordr: O7.ll.2OO2 passed by the 2nd responder t' the petitioner hled I'D' No' 128 of 2OO2 be r re the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warar ga1 (for short 'the Labour Court')' which was dismi 'sed on 29.o9.2005. Challenging the order dated29 (9'2005' the present writ petition is hled' 4. Learned counsel apPearlng for the 1 etitroner submits that the Labour Court did not properlY appreciate the facts and passed the impugt ed order solely based on the documents producer by the Marragement' The Labour Court ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner had not chzL ge sheet previouslY received any memo or tI t- G + * 4 regarding absenteeism, and that his absence for two months was due to severe illness. It is further submitted that, due to finalcial constraints ald his health condition, the petitioner was unable to submit his explanation. The Labour Court ought to have seen that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is shocking and disproportionate to the charge levelled against him

5. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Award, dated 29.O9.2OO5 and allow the writ petition.

6. The respondents have filed a counter afhdavit stating as.follows: (a) The petitioner was engaged as a Driver on a daily wage basis on 22.03.1993, and his servrces were regularized with effect from 09.03.1998. The ) respondents had imposed several punishnr nts on the petitioner on similar grounds of unauthori:l d absence, and he had been removed twice prior to he present remova-I. (b) The petitioner absented himself from duty from 03.12.1999 onwards, which was bro Lght to the notice of the respondents by the Traffi, Inspector through a report dated 13.12.1999. Based rn the said report, a charge sheet dated l2.Ol.2OOO r.'"2 s issued to the petitioner framing the following chargt: "For hauing absented for duties unauth( from 03. 12. 1 999 onutards uithout intim't sanction of leaue, uthich constitutes mis t under Regulation 28 (xxuii) of APSRTC Etnr (Conduct) Regulations, 1 963. " izedly ion or snduct oyees' (c) The petitioner submitted an exg lanation to the charge sheet. Not satisfied with the t rplanation, the respondents ordered a domest r enquiry, nominating the Chief Inspector, Sathupall Depot, as * 6 the Enquiry Ofhcer. Notice was issued to the petitioner on2O.OL.2O00, directing him to attend the enquiry on

27.OL.2OOO, 31.O1.2000, 04.O2.2OOO, and 08.02.2000. Although he acknowledged receipt of the notice, the petitioner failed to attend the enquiry. Hence, an ex parte enquiry was conducted in accordance with the CC&A Regulations. (d) The Enquiry Officer gave a hnding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. After examining the material on record, the respondents issued a show-cause notice dated 09.02.2000 to the petitioner. The petitioner, despite acknowledging the show-cause notice, failed to submit any reply- The respondents, after going through the material available on record, irnposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated O1'03.2000- Aggrieved by the said removal order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2"d respondent, which was i I \ dismissed on O2.O9.2OO2. The petitioner t ren filed a 7 review before the 3rd respondent, which .r rs rejected on 17.11.2OO2. The petitioner subseqr-ren- r filed I.D. No.128 of 2OO2 before the Labour Court, ar l the same was dismissed on 29.O9.2OO5. Challengirl the order dated 29.09.2005, the present writ petition ; filed.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearir q for the respondents submits that . the petitione r absented himself from duty without obtaining prior I ermission As per the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) li :gulations, 1963, a sick certificate must be submitte: within 48 hours of absence. The petitioner failed to s rbmit sick certihcate or obtain sanctioned leave. All rough the petitioner acknowledged the enquiry notice. re failed to attend the enquiry.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appeari:3 for the respondents further submits that since tht petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for a prolong8d reriod and C 8 had a history of chronic absenteeism, the punishment of removal from service was rightly imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner also approached the Labour Court with a delay of over two years' The order dated

01.03.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority was rightly upheld by the appellate authority, reviewing authority and the Labour Court. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. g. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that the petitioner, who was employed as a driver, had been absent from duty since 03.'1,2'1999' The petitioner submitted that he had been suffering from ill-health due to jaundice. However, as per the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, a sick certihcate must be submitted within 48 hours of 9 absence. The petitioner failed to submr certificate or obtain sanctioned leave' In : case, the respondents issued a notice to th: on 2O.OI.2OOO, directing him to attend the such a Le instant petitioner nquiry on

27.Ol.2OOO, 31.01.20OO, 04-O2.2OOO, and o \.o2.2000. Though the petitioner acknowledged rec: notice, he failed to attend the enquiry : occasions. The said conduct of the petiti: disrespect towards the authorities as rv employment and the salne cannot be enterr-i pt of the r all four rer shows :11 as his ined. It is also noted that, on earlier occasions, the pet tioner had been removed from service twice on similal' younds of unauthorized absence, and he had a histor-r of chronic nature of absenteeism- The petitioner also ' pproached the Labour Court with a delay of over two y( lrs.

10. The disciplinary authority, after cons dering the material and the evidence available on re: rrd, rightly imposed the punishment of removal fronr service on t &" l0 r-) (, the petitioner vide proceedings dated 01.03.2000, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority, the reviewing authority, and the Labour Court. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand cloSed. SD/. A.SREENIV ASSISTANT EDDY GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ,. ,n" lndustrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court' Waran records if anY) One CC to SRI P.RAVI SHANKER, Advocate [OPU Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, Hig h Court for the State of Telangana, at a arangal District.(with Plt"it?l.'bi'fo silL?t'J?:,{,'.i'3"1,-'3,!noJ#"'3''$3lnu'3 Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD CoPies 4_ 5. 6 PSK, GJP j" HIGH COURT DATED:1511012025 ORDER WP.No.709 of 2008 I() C) . r,e s.r,q l', rE8 2026 F * t_ S PAl.C DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -\"