Y SOMAIAH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHREERABAD HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule nisi. Heard Mr. C. V. Ramuht, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner-delinquent was removed from service as a disciplinary measure after holding departmental enquiry by the second respondent-The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Sangareddy, Medak District-disciplinary authority. The petitioner instituted I.D.Nol72 of 1996 before the Labour Court-II, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. In the claim statement, the petitioner assailed the validity of the domestic enquiry held by the Disciplinary Authority as well as on merits In the first instance, the third respondent-The Labour Court-11 Hyderabad considered the first issue relating to the validity of domestic enquiry and came to the conclusion that the departmental enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority was irregular and in violation of regulations and principles of natural justice Having held so, quite surprisingly the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad directed the disciplinary authority to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of obtaining the comments of the workman. The procedure adopted by the Labour Court apparently is, totally irregular and in violation of the well established principles governing the industrial adjudication. It is brought to my notice at the time of hearing that in the counter-claim statement filed by the management, the management reserved the liberty to adduce evidence in support of its charges levelled against the delinquent-petitioner in the event of Industrial Court finding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Authority was irregular and illegal If that is so, having regard to the finding recorded by the Industrial Court on the validity of the domestic enquiry, the management should have been called upon to lead evidence to prove the charges framed against the delinquent, and then, called upon the delinquent-petitioner to defend himself by adducing rebuttal evidence.

(3.) In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order permitting the disciplinary authority to continue the enquiry is quashed The finding recorded by the Industrial Court on preliminary issue relating to the validity of the departmental enquiry is sustained. The proceedings shall stand remitted to the Labour Court-II, Andhra Pradcsh, Hyderabad with a direction to call ' upon the Management-A.P.S.R.T.C. to lead evidence in support of the charges framed against the petitioner-delinquent and dispose of the industrial dispute in accordance with law and on merits. No costs.