Telangana High Court
WP/7354/1998 of Goparaju Sriprabhakara Hari Babu Vs Chairman AND Managing Director on 27 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7354 of 1998 Between: Goparaju Sriprabhakara Hari Babu son of Atchaiah, MTG-2B-29,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 7354 of 1998
Between:
Goparaju Sriprabhakara Hari Babu son of Atchaiah, MTG-2B-29, Vinayakanagar,Vuda Colony Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam - 530 044
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 Chairman & Managing Director The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam2 The Director (Personal ) Personal Department The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam 3 K.Krishana Rao Deputy General Manager (Power) , Disciplainary Authourity, The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam 4 Additional General Manager (Power , Electiracal & Telecom) Appellate Authority, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ ofCertiorari calling for the records of the respondents pertaining to the order of the 4threspondent dt. 6/08/97 No.ED( W)/97/256 confirming his earlier orders dt. 10/05/97No. WK/Addl GM( P, E & TC)/949 and to quash the same by declaring that they areillegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unjust unwarranted and against the conditions of hisemployment and against the principles of natural justice and to consequently directthe respondent to continue his services with all attendant benefits such asincrements, bonus, incentives, pension, promotion, etc., apart from back wages Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.V.RAVINDER RAO
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Challenge is made by the petitioner in this writ petition against the impugned orderof the 4[th] respondent dated 6-8-1997 No. ED(W)/97/256 confirming his earlier ordersdated 10-5-97 and sought for a direction to the respondents to continue the servicesof the petitioner with all attendant benefits including increment, bonus, incentives,pension, promotion etc. apart from the back wages.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr V. Ravinder Rao, learnedStanding Counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner who has been an employee of the respondents steel plant files thiswrit petition inter alia seeking to assail the impugned orders terminating his servicesfrom the respondent company on 9-7-1996. The case of the petitioner is that he hasbeen in employment in the respondents company. However, on the ground that thepetitioner is unauthorizedly absent, proceedings have been initiated on differentpoints of time and ultimately after holding an enquiry it has resulted into thetermination of his services. According to the petitioner, even though he has given asatisfactory explanation, especially having regard to the illness of his mother, thesame has not been properly considered by the respondents and further even havingregard to the length of absence the termination of his services and removal from theservice has no nexus to the gravity of the allegations made against him. Further, it isalso pointed out that even though the petitioner has filed an appeal andsubsequently a review application also, the same were negatived. Hence, the writpetition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the long service of thepetitioner and especially taking into consideration the reasons given for hisabsence, the respondents ought not to have removed him from the services.
Learned standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that it is only due to thefact that the petitioner was consistently absent on more than one occasion and asrepeatedly doing the same, the impugned action has been taken. Hence, it does notcall for any interference.
Having considered the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the
Arguments
material, it is seen that the only question which calls for consideration is as to inview of the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the respondents hereinin removing the petitioner from service is sustainable or not.
There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is an employee working withthe respondents Company. But, on more than one occasion the petitioner wascharged for unauthorized absence for various periods of time and under theimpugned proceedings the petitioner has been charge- sheeted for his absencecontinuously. During the enquiry it was found that the petitioner was absent in theyears 1990, 1991, 1993, 1995 & 1996. The very charge itself is that the petitioner ishabitual absentee from duty and his absence is continuous one without priorsanction, which is in violation of the standing orders of the respondents. Though thepetitioner has filed an explanation, however, the same was found to be notsatisfactory. Even taking into consideration the reasons shown at this stage it cannotbe said that the petitioner’s continuous absence can be justified more so in view ofthe specific standing orders and also the obligation cast on him. Having regard tothe findings as arrived at by the authorities at all levels about the continuousabsence of the petitioner, it clearly shows that he is habitual in absence for whichthere cannot be any justification. In view of the same, except seeking indulgence, noother valid point has been raised by the petitioner to show any irregularity in theprocedure adopted by the respondents and ultimately removing him from service.Thus, it has to be held that the finding as arrived at the removal of the petitioner fromthe services is perfectly justified.
In view of the same, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and accordingly it isdismissed. No costs.
________________
B. PRAKASH RAO, J
Dt 28/12/2004
Kvrk
To
1 The Chairman & Managing Director
The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam 2 The Director (Personal ), Personal Department The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam 3 K. Krishana Rao Deputy General Manager (Power) , Disciplinary Authority, The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, VisakhapatnamAuthority, The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam 4 Additional General Manager (Power , Electrical & Telecom) Appellate Authority, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.(with records) Appellate Authority, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.(with records)
5. Two CD copies.