K BALANAGAL REDDY Vs. APSRTC HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner who was removed as conductor by A. P. State Road Transport corporation, being unsuccessful in Appeal and also Review, had preferred the present writ petition questioning the order of removal. The details relating to the order of removal, appeal preferred and the rejection thereof and the review made as against the said order and the rejection thereof also had been narrated in detail.

(2.) It is also stated that the enquiry Was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in violation of principles of natural justice and however it is stated that even if the proved charges are taken into consideration the order of removal is highly disproportionate. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter- affidavit it is specifically stated how the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet personally on 1-6-1998, for which he failed to submit any explanation and in such circumstances, the case was entrusted to the enquiry Officer to submit a detailed report after conducting Departmental Enquiry and ultimately after following the procedure which had been narrated in detail, the impugned order was passed and the appeal was filed beyond time and the appeal also was rejected and aggrieved by the same, Review also was filed and the same also ended in rejection. It was also stated that the appropriate remedy is to approach the Industrial Court by raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) Ms. Malleswari, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had contended that the charges framed in fact are not serious in nature and the first charge is relating to unauthorized absence for one day and the second charge is relating to the alleged habitual irregular attendance to avoid ordinary charted duties. The learned counsel also contended that the second charge was framed only with a view to strengthen the first charge and even otherwise, the impugned order of removal is highly disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to several of the decisions i. e. , Whirlpool corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, mumbai, U. P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Malaikannu A. v. Managing Director, Marudhu Pandiar transport Corpn. Ltd. and another, thanikachalam M. and others v. Maduranthakam Agricultural Producers cooperative Marketing Society and others, Union of India and others vs. D. S. Karekar and others, rajahah M. and others v. State Bank of India, mumbai and others.