NARSI REDDY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, APSRTC, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was served with the impugned notice under Regulation 39 (1) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Leave Regulations declaring that he is deemed to have resigned from service and consequently ceased to be in service.

(2.) The petitioner was an employee in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') and was appointed as an apprentice Conductor on 8-11-1967 and his services were regularised as a temporary conductor with effect from 1-6-1971. He was transferred to Secunderabad Depot through letter No. 02/104(934-74KP) dated 15-5-1975. The petitioner reported to duty at Secunderabad depot on 5-6-1975. According to the petitioner, he fell ill on 7-6-1975 and was under medical treatment till 8-8-1975 and obtained a fitness certificate from the R.T.C. Dispensary, Musheerabad and submitted the same to the 3rd respondent. While he was awaiting instructions he again fell sick and was under treatment under the R.T.C. doctor at Gowliguda. He further contends that his wife was suffering from T.B. and hence his mother came from his native village and took away the petitioner as well as his wife to their native village-in Mahboobnagar District and after recovering from his illness, the petitioner came to Hyderabad and reported to duty on 23-11-1975 but the 3rd respondent refused to take him back on duty on the ground that he passed the impugned order under Regulation 39 (3) of the APSRTC Leave Regulation treating the petitioner to have voluntarily abandoned the service. Against that order, he preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent, but he rejected it on the ground that no appeal can lie against the order passed under R. 39 (3) of the Regulations. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal and void, as no enquiry was held and no opportunity was given to him. If such an opportunity was given to him, he could have explained as to the circumstances under which he was not able to report to duty and could have placed the medical certificates issued by doctors of R. T. C. Dispensary at Musheerabad and Gowliguda who treated him till 30-9- 197:1. He also contends that the procedure laid down under Regulation No. 4 of the said Regulations is not followed and as such the order is void. He therefore, prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari questioning the impugned order.

(3.) Opposing this petition, the respondents contend that on the receipt of the letter No. 02/104(934-74-KP) dated 15-5-1975 transferring him to Secunderabad Depot from Kukatpalli, the petitioner did not report to duty at Secunderabad Depot till 5-6-1975 though he was liable to report to duty on 29-5-1975. Again he left the office without intimating. but attended on 7-8-1975 with sick and admit certificates issued by his own medical attendants. The 3rd Respondent directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Surgeon of the Corporation for counter-signature on his medical certificates. But the Civil Surgeon did not counter-sign the certificates produced by the petitioner. Even under letter No. P1/1(6/75- SDl D/- 18-6-1975 the petitioner was directed to appear before the Civil Surgeon but he failed to do so. They further contend that the petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary leave for more than three months in view of Regulation 39 (1) (c) of the Leave Regulations of 1963 and hence the petitioner should be deemed to have resigned from his job and ceased to be in service as per Regulation No. 39 (3) and the impugned order is, therefore, void.