A. NARSIMHA RAO Vs. DEPOT MANAGER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present appeal, appellant has challenged order dated 12.12.2017 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13454 of 2009.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed in the respondent Corporation on 04.04.1998 and later his services were regularised with effect from 01.08.1998. While he was conducting bus on 10.11.2003 on route Jaggaiahpet-Chintraial, the checking officials checked the bus at 3/4th stage and based on the report of the checking officials, a charge memo was issued. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet on 18.11.2003 and kept the appellant under suspension. Pending departmental enquiry in respect of the charges, the appellant submitted explanation on 24.11.2003 and since the explanation was not proper, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 05.02.2004 holding that the charges were proved. When the respondents called for objections on the enquiry report, the appellant submitted his comments on 17.02.2004 and after considering the same, a show-cause-notice for removal from service was issued on 29.03.2004. However, the appellant was removed from service vide order dated 19.04.2004 and same was confirmed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority by orders dated 29.07.2004 and 06.09.2005 respectively. Challenging the removal order dated 19.04.2004, the appellant filed I.D.No.185 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Guntur, and the said Court by its award dated 19.02.2009 dismissed the application upholding the order of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P.No.13454 of 2009 and same was also dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2017.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant was removed from service, duly recovering an amount of Rs.21/- towards three re-issued tickets of Rs.7/- each and forfeiting the security deposit to the revenues of the respondent Corporation besides treating the suspension as not on duty. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is disproportionate to the misconduct if admitted by the appellant. Thus, the learned counsel prayed that the removal order dated 19.04.2004 may be set aside.