G N PRASAD Vs. APSRTC HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Mechanic working with the APSRTC. He was absent from duty from 11-03-2013 till 18-03-2013 without obtaining prior permission. A solitary charge was framed against the petitioner and enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. On 30-03-2013, enquiry report was submitted. On 24-04-2013, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service. Subsequently, the petitioner was removed from service as the explanation offered by the petitioner was found not satisfactory. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is laid. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation raised preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy and that the present writ petition consequently is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 ("1967 Regulations", for short) and pointed out that under Regulation 12(3), the ground on which action is proposed shall be reduced into definite charge or charges and communicated to the employee and that the Corporation violated the same so much so the writ petition is maintainable. The ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner raised this contention is the observation of the proceedings dated 17-06-2013 through which the petitioner was removed from service. The Depot Manager, Bandlaguda Depot recorded in the proceedings dated 17-06-2013 that even after the enquiry, the petitioner absented himself from duty on 16-06-2013 and 17-06-2013 and that the conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is a habitual unauthorized absentee.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner offered explanation regarding the absence of the petitioner from duty on 16-06-2013 and 17-06-2013. His contention is that the wife of the petitioner fell down on 16-06-2013 and sustained injuries. The petitioner had to take his wife to the hospital. In this background, the petitioner could not attend duty on 16-06-2013 and could not apply for leave. 17-06-2013, being a Monday is a weekly off day for the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner did not go to office on 17-06-2013. This is the explanation offered by the petitioner for his absence on 16-06-2013 and 17-06-2013.

(3.) The important contention however is that the Corporation did not issue any charge and did not hold any enquiry against the petitioner for his alleged unauthorized absence on 16-06-2013 and 17-06-2013 and that the order of the removal consequently is illegal. Where the petitioner contended that the procedure was not followed in ordering the removal of the petitioner from service in violation of Regulation 12(3) of 1967 Regulations, I consider that this writ petition is maintainable without invoking the alternative relief.