Telangana High Court
WP/27828/2007 of C. Venku Reddy (Ex-Conductor E. 510039) Vs The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director on 27 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.27828 of 2007 Dated:27.12.2007 Between C.Venku Reddy ..Petitioner and 1.APSRTC rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and Another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.27828 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.27828 of 2007
Dated:27.12.2007
Between
C.Venku Reddy
and
..Petitioner
1.APSRTC rep., by itsManaging Director, Hyderabad andAnother.
…Respondents
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:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.27828 of 2007
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of 4[th] respondent in removingthe petitioner from service vide proceedingsdated 16.8.2004 asNo.E1/1(68)/2003-SLPT confirmed by 3[rd] respondent in appeal videproceedings No.Steno/19(13)2006-DVM/GDR dated27.1.2006 and further confirmed in review by 2[nd]respondent in Proceedings No.St/675(03)2006-RM(NLR) dated 24.5.2006 as arbitrary, illegal andcontrary to the principles of natural justice.
It appears that while working as a Conductor atRapur depot, the petitioner was arrested and putbehind bars in view of his involvement in a murdercase. However, on grant of bail by the trial Court, he was released, and thereafter, reported to duty.While so, by an order dated 13.1.2004, the trialCourt convicted the petitioner for the offence underSection 302 IPC. The appeal filed by him before thisCourt was allowed by Judgment dated 2.1.2006. Inthe meanwhile, the petitioner was issued withcharge sheet dated 25.6.2003 for the followingcharge:
“For having been absent for yourduty un-authorisedly from22.6.2003 to 25.6.2003 without any intimationresulted in dislocation of services leading toinconvenience to the traveling public and loss ofrevenue to the corporation which constitutedmisconduct under Ref.28 (XXVII) & (IX.A) ofemployees (conduct) Reg.1963.”
After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter,the petitioner was removed from service for hisunauthorized absence from 22.6.2003 to25.6.2003.
The grievance of the petitioner was that thoughno enquiry was conducted for his absence for theearlier period, the same was also taken into consideration for the of purpose imposingpunishment of removal from service. Therefore, hefiled an appeal before the third respondent and itwas rejected. Aggrieved thereby, he filed reviewpetition before the second respondent, but it wasalso rejected. Hence, the present writ petition isfiled.
It seems that the charge memo was issued tothe petitioner for his unauthorized absence only fora period of four days from 22.6.2003 to 25.6.2003. During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officerhas recorded that the petitioner was absent fromduty, and basing on that finding, the punishment ofremoval from service was imposed. I am of theopinion that even if the charge of unauthorizedabsence of four days is proved, the punishment ofremoval from service is shockingly disproportionateto that of the misconduct alleged against thepetitioner. Therefore, the petitioner ought not tohave been removed from service.
Accordingly, the review order passed by thesecond respondent on 24.5.2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2[nd] respondent for re-consideration of the entire issue and for imposinglesser punishment than that of the removal fromservice and passing appropriate orders within aperiod of four weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of the order.
Writ petition is allowing accordingly. No costs.
rkk
_________
27-12-2007