MD.HAFEEZUDDIN, HYDERABAD Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned proceedings No.PA/19(132)/2002-DVM(CR) dt.31.12.2002 in so far as denying the back wages, postponing the increment which fall due next for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the removal period as not on duty, as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the back wages along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent Corporation as a driver in the year 1986 and while he was working under the control of the 3rd respondent, the respondent issued a charge sheet dt.25.09.2001 alleging that the petitioner absented from duties unauthorisedly from 06.09.2001 to 12.09.2001 without prior sanction of leave which constitutes a misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(xxvii) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner submitted his explanations explaining that due to illness, the petitioner could not attend his duties during the above period and requested that since he had taken treatment from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, he should be granted sick leave. However, he submitted the medical certificate from a private doctor. The 3rd respondent was not satisfied with the petitioner 's contentions and removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent who modified the punishment to that of reinstatement into service but with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and also treating the period of absence as 'not on duty ' for the purposes of pay, leave and increment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, submitted that the petitioner had put in 16 years of service and the gravity of misconduct did not call for any harsh punishment such as removal from service, or the modified punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and without back wages and also treating the period of absence as 'not on duty ' for the purpose of pay, leave and increment. Therefore, according to him, the punishment meted out to the petitioner is harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged by the respondents and he prayed for setting aside the punishment as modified by the 2nd respondent Divisional Manager. He placed reliance upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of N. Balakrishna Vs. Security Officer, APSRTC, Hyderabad Zone and others 2003 (3) ALT 96, wherein it was held that the certificate issued by the competent medical officer or by the petitioner 's own medical attendant should be accepted and if for any reason the medical certificate is doubted, the authority should refer the case for investigation by the competent medical officer for his advice and report and if such a procedure is not followed, then the action of the respondent authority in removing the petitioner from service is to be set aside. The learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to the finding of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner had submitted sick certificate from a private doctor who has treated him and therefore, in view of the decision in the case of N. Balakrishna Vs. Security Officer, APSRTC, Hyderabad Zone and others (1 supra), the medical certificate should have been accepted by the respondents.