K. NEHRU Vs. APSRTC REP. BY ITS VIDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Initially petitioner was appointed as conductor on contract basis in the year 1999 and was regularized in the year 2001. On 29.08.2007, a charge sheet was issued alleging that petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duties from 17.09.2007 to 27.09.2007. After conducting enquiry, Enquiry Officer held the charge as proved vide Enquiry Report dated 20.01.2008. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary authority issued show cause notice dated 18.02.2008. Petitioner filed his explanation to the said show cause notice. By order dated 10.04.2008, petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal on 19.04.2008. The Appellate Authority having regard to the grounds raised in the appeal, modified the punishment of removal to that of reduction of basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and also directed treatment of period of removal from service as period 'not on duty'. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was absented from duties for a period of ten days on account of his illness. According to learned counsel, petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and he took treatment in his native village. After recouping from illness he reported to duty. Therefore, punishment imposed on the petitioner by the appellate authority is too severe and disproportionate to the delinquency alleged and proved. Learned counsel further submits that the appellate authority while considering the appeal also took into consideration the subsequent absence from duties from 29.03.2008 to 09.04.2008. He, therefore, submits that appellate authority was influenced by the subsequent absence while imposing the modified punishment, which is illegal.