WP/15942/1999 of S.D.Prasad, E. 361523 Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C., on 27 December 2005

W.P. No. 15942 of 1999

Oral order:

The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondents-APSRTC in 1990. Thepetitioner states that as he was unwell, he absented himself from duty for a period often days, and for such absence, respondent No.3 issued charge sheet dated27.02.1996. The petitioner states that immediately on 05.03.1996, he approachedrespondent No.3 and submitted a leave letter, supported by a Medical Certificate,issued by the Doctor who treated him, but respondent No.1 without considering thesame and without conducting any enquiry, issued proceedings dated 01.07.1996disengaging his services. Assailing the said proceedings, the petitioner preferredappeal to respondent No.2, and the same is stated to be still pending. The petitionerstates that he made several representations to respondent No.2 in vain. Therefore,he decided to meet respondent No.1, and while on his way to meet respondentNo.1, he met with an accident and suffered injuries to his right leg. After hisrecuperation, the petitioner states that he made representation dated 10.03.1999 torespondent No.1 to provide him alternate employment and the same is pending.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no enquiry whatsoeverwas conducted by respondent No.3 before disengaging his services, and as such,the order dated 01.07.1996, passed by respondent No.3 disengaging his services,be set aside, and inasmuch as the petitioner on his way to meet respondent No.1 inconnection with the non-disposal of the appeal by respondent No.2, met with anaccident and suffered injury to his right leg and became disabled, having regard tothe provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Disabilities Act’),is entitled to be provided alternative employment, and the action of the respondentsin not providing alternative employment, is illegal and arbitrary.

The respondents filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel for therespondents reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner is not a regular Driver, he is a casual Driver. As the petitioner without any prior permissionabsented himself from duty for a period of ten days from 06.02.1996 to 20.02.1996,and therefore, he was issued charge-sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner again withoutprior permission absented from duty from 05.06.1996 to 30.06.1996. He submittedthat as per Clause 3 of the Office Order No. E1/145(8)/94-BPRT, dated 02.04.1994,the Casual Drivers are liable for termination at any time without assigning anyreasons, and as the petitioner absented from duty without prior permission,respondent No.3 passed orders dated 01.071.996, disengaging the services of thepetitioner. He denied that the petitioner preferred appeal, and submitted that thepetitioner is no more the employee of the respondents from 01.07.1996. Hesubmitted that the petitioner not being an employee of the respondents, and hehaving met with an accident while not in service with the respondents, is not entitledfor alternative employment under the provisions of the Disabilities Act. He thusprayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned StandingCounsel for the respondents.

Conclusion

The petitioner is a Casual Driver. For the unauthorized absence of thepetitioner from 06.02.1996 to 20.02.1996, respondent No.3 issued charge sheet, andthough the petitioner contends that respondent No.3 without considering his illnessand the Medical Certificate, produced by him, has passed order dated 01.07.1996disengaging his services, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner againabsented himself from duty unauthorizedly from 05.06.1996 to 30.06.1996, andhaving regard to Clause 3 of Office Order No. E1/145(8)/94-BPRT, dated02.04.1994, which states that Casual Drivers are liable for termination at any timewithout assigning any reasons, respondent No.3 passed the order dated01.07.1996, disengaging the services of the petitioner. Since the petitioner is aCasual Driver, having regard to Clause 3 of the Office Order No. E1/145(8)/94-BPRT, dated 02.04.1994, no exception can be taken thereto. Though the petitionercontends that he filed appeal before respondent No.2 against the order passed byrespondent No.3 disengaging his services, and while on his way to meet torespondent No.1 to complain about the non-disposal of appeal by respondent No.2,he met with an accident, and as such, he is entitled to be provided alternativeemployment, the fact remains, it is the specific case of the respondents thatpetitioner did not prefer any appeal to respondent No.2 against the order passed by respondent No.3, disengaging his services, and the petitioner pursuant to the orderof respondent No.3, is not the employee of respondents, and since the petitioner metwith an accident while he was not the employee of the respondents, he is notentitled to be provided alternative employment under the Disabilities Act. Inasmuchas the petitioner as on the date of his accident and suffering of disability, was not onthe rolls of respondents, he is not entitled to be provided alternative employmentunder the provisions of the Disabilities Act, and no exception can be taken to theaction of the respondents in not providing alternative employment to the petitioner bysetting aside the order dated 01.07.1996 passed by respondent No.3, disengaginghis services.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same isaccordingly dismissed. No costs.

Date: 13.12.2005.

KSR/DA

_________________N.V. RAMANA, J.