WP/33333/2011 of J. Reuben Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 29 December 2011

Conclusion

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of therespondents in removing the petitioner from service by order, dated20.06.2006, as confirmed in appeal and review petition, for thesubsequent period of absenteeism from 05.05.2006 to 20.06.2006,without framing charge and without conducting enquiry, as arbitraryand illegal and contrary to the regulations and circulars andconsequently to set aside the same and direct the respondents toreinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all otherconsequential benefits.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated thatthe petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in respondent No.1Corporation in the year 1985. While so, from 16.01.2004 to 28.02.2004 due to ill-health, he could not attend for duties. Therefore,respondent No.5 issued charge sheet, dated 23.03.2004, for hisunauthorized absence. A domestic enquiry was conducted into thecharges. Though the Enquiry Officer in his report, dated 09.07.2004held that the charges are proved, the petitioner continued in serviceand no action was taken against him in view of his explanation. Whileso, a show cause notice, dated 01.03.2005 was issued to himproposing to remove him from service for the charges of absenteeismin the year 2004. The petitioner had given a detailed reply to the saidshow cause notice. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, dated01.03.2005, no action has been taken. On 20.06.2006, respondentNo.5 issued removal order taking into consideration the subsequentperiod fo absenteeism from 05.05.2006, during which period thepetitioner suffered from paralysis, taken treatment at GovernmentAyurvedic Hospital and reported sick. Therefore, respondent No.5without issuing charge sheet for the subsequent period from05.05.2006 and without conducting any enquiry as prescribed underthe regulations issued removal order.

On 03.08.2006 the petitioner preferred appeal before respondentNo.4 and the same was rejected by proceedings, dated 03.02.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review appeal, dated 22.02.2007 torespondent No.3, which was also rejected by order, dated 27.09.2007. The petitioner filed mercy appeal before respondent No.2 on28.09.2010. But, respondent No.2 has not considered the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitionerfiled mercy appeal before respondent No.2 on 28.09.2010 and thesame is pending consideration.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation contended that the petitioner filed mercyappeal before respondent No.2 and that appropriate orders would bepassed on the papeal by the respondent-Corporation in accordancewith law.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, withoutgoing into the merits of the case, respondent No.2 is directed todispose of the mercy appeal, dated 28.09.2010, filed by the petitionerwithin a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder, if it is not already disposed of.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.

__________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

DECEMBER 29, 2011

YVL

YVL

WRIT PEITITON No.33333 of 2011

DATED:29.12.2011