K BRAHMACHARY Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. Petitioner was working as a Conductor in APSRTC since 1985. He suffered an order of removal dated 12.04.2005 on the ground that he had contracted bigamous marriage in violation of Regulation 28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of removal, which was questioned before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 258 of 2006 and the same was decided against the petitioner by award dated 29.08.2008 without taking into consideration the circumstance that no enquiry was conducted by the respondents while passing the order of removal. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner has worked for 20 long years before order of removal was passed and thereby the petitioner is deprived of all his service benefits also for the said 20 years for which he worked. Learned counsel, therefore, questions the award of the tribunal by placing reliance on a decision of this Court in V.V. Guravaiah v. Asst. Works Manager, APSRTC, 1989 2 ALT 189 on the ground that in similar case relating to bigamous marriage, the order of removal was set aside and reinstatement of the employee was ordered. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Syed Azad v. Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, SCR, 2006 2 ALT 112 wherein in similar circumstances, an order of compulsory retirement was passed, but this Court interfered with the said punishment by ordering punishment of stoppage of two increments. A decision in review passed by the Regional manager, Kurnool in a case relating to one R. Deva Varam, E.404154 of Kurnool-1 Depot is also relied upon by the learned counsel to contend that, in a similar charge, the order of removal was modified to deferment of increments for two years with cumulative effect.

(3.) Learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that the order of removal was clearly justified on the facts and circumstances, as the petitioner had admitted to the said bigamous marriage and the petitioner himself had given nomination to one Smt. K. Vijayalakshmi, as his wife, which was replaced by giving a fresh nomination in favour of one Smt. K. Savitramma and both of them are described as wife by the petitioner. The order of removal, therefore, passed by the primary authority, as confirmed in appeal and review, was not found liable for interference by the tribunal and as such, the learned counsel submits that the award of the tribunal does not warrant any interference.