K S C BOSE Vs. APSRTC HYDRABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed, as Conductor, in the APSRTC, on 26. 1. 1977. Thereafter, he was promoted, as Assistant Depot Clerk and was working in the Jangareddy Gudem Depot. The Depot manager, the fourth respondent herein, issued a charge-sheet, dated 17. 1. 2007, alleging that the petitioner remained absent, from duty, from 15. 1. 2007 to 16. 1. 2007, unauthorisedly. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 1. 2. 2007, stating that he could not attend the duties on 15. 1. 2007, due to his serious illness. On the basis of a report submitted by the enquiry Officer, the fourth respondent issued show-cause notice, dated 1. 2. 2007, proposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 2. 2. 2007. Through proceedings, dated 13. 8. 2007, the fourth respondent removed the petitioner from service. Departmental remedies of appeal and review, filed by the petitioner, were rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) SRI S. M. Subhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the fourth respondent has reduced the domestic enquiry into an empty formality. He contends that ,the occasion to appoint an enquiry Officer would have arisen, only when it was found that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfied, but, in the instant case, the four important steps, namely, appointment of Enquiry officer, conducting of enquiry, submission of enquiry report and issuance of second show-cause notice have taken place on one and the same day, namely, on 1. 2. 2007. He submits that having proceeded with such jet speed, the fourth respondent passed the order of removal eight months later, taking into account the subsequent periods of absence. He contends that removal of an employee from service for absence of one day, is just unconscionable.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was given opportunity, at every stage of proceedings to defend himself. He contends that since the charge was in relation to absence of one day, the enquiry was concluded and subsequent steps were taken on the same day. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner remained absent for subsequent periods also.