MD. PASHA Vs. APSRTC AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service as Welder in the year 1989. He was working in the Korutla Depot. While so, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner alleging that he has unauthorizedly absented from duties and caused disruption of services in the third respondent -Depot. The charge sheet alleges that the petitioner was absented from duties from 2.12.2007 to 13.12.2007 without any reasonable cause and without any intimation. The disciplinary proceedings ended in imposing punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 19.8.2008. Appeal filed against the said order was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.06.2015. In the review petition filed by the petitioner, the reviewing authority modified the punishment of removal to that of reducing the pay of the petitioner to the minimum of the time scale of regular Welder only for the salary purpose. Aggrieved thereby, this Writ Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Corporation. With the consent of learned counsel writ petition is finally disposed of.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was sick from 17.11.2007 to 1.12.2007 and since he could not recoup from the ailment he applied for extension of sick leave and the same was submitted to the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Korutla Depot. The petitioner was under the impression that the leave was sanctioned. On recovery from ailment, when the petitioner reported for duty on 14.12.2007, he was not admitted to duty and falsely disciplinary proceedings were initiated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that there was no valid application for extension of sick leave, the absence was only for a period of 12 days and for such a short period of absence even the modified punishment is too harsh and disproportionate.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that as per the charge sheet, the petitioner was absent from 2.12.2007 to 13.12.2007, whereas while passing order of removal, the disciplinary authority also took into consideration his absence from duty on 1.8.2008 and from 5.8.2008 to 6.8.2008, that is after submission of explanation by the petitioner to the show cause notice on the findings of enquiry officer. Petitioner was not put on notice regarding the subsequent absence from duty. It is illegal to consider subsequent absence while imposing the punishment of removal from service without putting petitioner on notice. Though this contention was specifically urged and the same was also recorded, the reviewing authority has not dealt with the said contention. Learned counsel therefore, submits that the proceedings are vitiated on this ground alone.