LAWS(APH)-2002-2-48

KORADA BHASKARA RAO Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION CIRCLE APSEB SRIKAKULAM SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

Decided On February 27, 2002
KORADA BHASKARA RAO Appellant
V/S
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, APSEB, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records and the order impugned in the writ petition and the grounds of appeal.

(2.) The appellant joined the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') on 24-11-1964 as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and promoted later as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the year 1980. He was sanctioned earned leave for 30 days in 1985. On expiry of the leave the appellant did not join the duty, which culminated into a departmental enquiry. A punishment was imposed by reverting him from the post of UDC to LDC. The appellant was directed to join duty in the reverted post by order dated 20-8-1986 which was acknowledged by the appellant on 31-8-1986, against which he filed WP No. 16922 of 1986. This Court did not grant any interim order staying operation of the reversion order dated 20-8-1986. However, the appellant did not join the duty as directed by the Board. In these circumstances, the Board, invoking Regulation 28, Sub-clause (3) of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') terminated the services of the appellant. The said regulation says that an employee of the Board, who remained absent unauthorisedly from duty for a continuous period of one year shall be deemed to have resigned from service from the date of absence and shall automatically cease to be in the employment of the Board. It is a matter of record that the appellant remained absent unauthorisedly from duty for a continuous period of one year from 5-8-1985. It is also a matter of record that the appellant has failed to participate in the enquiry inspite of several opportunities being afforded to him and also failed to comply with the order of the management and chose to remain absent for a continuous period of one year counted from the date when he was directed to join duty in the reverted post.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Board has no power to invoke the provisions of Regulation 28(3) is farfetched. It is a case where the record clearly shows that the appellant was directed to explain vide Memo dated 20-8-1986 for his unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 31-8-1986, which attracted the provisions of Regulation 28(3) of the Board's Service Regulations. Opportunity was given to him to explain whether there was any justifiable ground for his absence. The enquiry officer was appointed on 16-10-1987. The charge-sheet was also issued to the appellant on 5-12-1987, which was served on him on 9-12-1987. The appellant did not submit any explanation though time sought for by him was granted which was also expired on 31-12-1987. The enquiry officer again issued a Memo dated 30-1-1988 but no explanation was submitted. Thus it is seen that the appellant has not availed of the opportunity made available to him on several occasions. The enquiry report was submitted on 31-1-1998 and based on the report a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 15-2-1988 which was acknowledged by him and to which he gave explanation on 28-2-1988 stating that the writ petition is pending before the Court. The said contention was not accepted for the simple reason that though the writ was admitted no stay was granted. And in such circumstances, the appellant ought to have joined the duty. Since the appellant did not join duty final order invoking the provisions of Regulation 28 Sub-clause (3) of the Service Regulations has been passed. In our considered opinion, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the management in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is ceased to be in Board's employment. A perusal of record would clearly show that the management has followed the principles of natural justice at every stage of the disciplinary proceedings. It is not in dispute that the appellant is out of employment from 1985 and that he has been litigating the matter in Court since then without reporting for duty inspite of being asked to report for duty on several occasions. No other point has been argued assailing the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge.