WP/34143/2011 of D. Muskin Saheb, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 30 December 2011

Conclusion

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ ofmandamus, declaring the proceedingsNo.02/95(98)/2008-KDR dated 15.09.2008 issued by the4[th] respondent, and orders of respondent Nos.3 and 2,confirming the penalty of removal from service, as illegal,arbitrary and against principles of natural justice beingviolative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indiaand to set aside the same and consequently declare thatthe petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with all backwages and other service benefits.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedStanding Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

The facts of the writ petition, in brief, are:

The petitioner joined service as Casual Conductor inthe respondent-Corporation in the year 1992 and hisservices were regularized in the year 1995. On theallegation of committing some cash and ticket irregularitieson 09.05.2008, while on duty, he was put undersuspension on 21.05.2008, pending enquiry. The EnquiryOfficer submitted a Report dated 26.07.2008, on whichthe petitioner submitted objections. The 4[th] respondentissued a Show Cause notice dated 11.08.2008 stating that the charges against the petitioner are proved beyonddoubt and that removal from service is the properpunishment for him, and that the petitioner was givenseven days time for personal hearing. The petitionersubmitted explanation to the Show Cause notice, but the4[th] respondent passed the impugned proceedingsremoving him from service and the period from the date ofsuspension to the date of removal be treated as ‘not onduty’ for all purposes. The petitioner approachedrespondent No.3 and 2 in appeal by submitting a detailedexplanation. However, the order of removal was upheld. The petitioner states that he further approachedrespondent No.1 by way of filing a mercy petition, and thesaid petition is still pending on the file of 1[st] respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings whereby he wasremoved from service, he filed this writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that there is an effective alternativeremedy available to the petitioner under the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, and that instead of raising anindustrial dispute before the Labour Court, the petitionerstraightaway approached this Court.

On the said submission, the learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that he may be given liberty toapproach the Labour Court.In that view of the matter, this writ petition isdisposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to him under law. There shallbe no order as to costs.

30[th] December, 2011

__________________________

JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

KSM