E K RAO NARSIPATNAM DEPOT Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of deferring the decasualisation of the petitioner for a period of two years, vide proceedings dated 21-9-2001, which was modified to the extent of one year vide proceedings dated 26-4-2002 besides treating the period of absence as not on duty is contrary to the A.P.S.R.T.C. (CCA) Regulations, illegal and arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside insofar as it went against the petitioner in imposing the punishment in the interest of justice by consequently directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as driver from 17-3-1998 and worked till 2-1 -2001 without any blemish and due to double duties; he fell sick and absented from duties by producing the sick certificates from the private doctors. Without considering the same, he was charge-sheeted on the allegations of unauthorized absence. Petitioner submits that after conducting a mechanical enquiry, he was removed from service vide proceedings dated 6-6-2001 by the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and he was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 21-9-2001 with an order that the decasualisation of the petitioner be deferred for a period of two years besides treating the period of his absence from the date of termination till he reports for duty at Narsipatnam, as 'Not on Duty' forthe purpose of decasualisation. He further submitted that the Divisional Manager found from the report of the Senior Traffic Inspector, Paderu, that the performance of the petitioner at the depot was sincere, before he got the disease and his performance during the years 1998 and 1999 was also satisfactory. In the report of the SeniorTraffic lnspector,it was presumed that his ill health has obstructed him to attend duties as the Medical Officer, APSRTC; Paderu, has issued a sick certificate on 1-6-2000 about his sickness. The said observations clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has not absented for duties intentionally, but the reason for his absence is that he was ill. So having found him not guilty of the absence, imposing punishment of deferment of the petitionerdecasualisation is unjust, contrary to the regulations and against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) He further submitted that the punishment imposed by the appellate authority is without jurisdiction and there is no such provision to impose the punishment by deferring decasualisation and the appellate authority adopted a method to deprive his regularization; therefore, the impugned orders, including the disciplinary proceedings are liable to be set aside, insofar as it went against the petitioner in the interest of justice. Further he also enumerated the penalties in Regulation 8 of APSRTC (CCA) Regulations, 1967. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.