THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20236 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the award, dated 05.11.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in I.D.No.82 of 2002. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in 1978 in Khammam Depot. When he was working as such, in 1994, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent for the duties with effect from 31.05.1994 till the date of issuing charge sheet i.e. 17.09.1994. In the disciplinary proceedings, following two charges were framed against him. “1. For having absented for your duties w.e.f 31-5-1994 to till date without any intimation or sanctioned leave which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having not reported to Taranaka Hospital when you were advised with letter and facilitated with an E.D. Pass for your genuineous of sick submitted from a private Doctor, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” It is the case of respondent No.2 that the petitioner did not attend the domestic enquiry proceedings and was not even responded to the notices sent to his address as per the service record. It’s further case is that the petitioner has not given his change of address. By issuing notices to the address notified in the records, an enquiry was conducted into the above said charges. In view of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him, he was removed from service by order, dated 14.11.1994. Against the said order, it appears, he has filed a statutory appeal before the Divisional Manager in 2000 and the same was ended in dismissal by order, dated 12.07.2001. Thereafter, an attempt was made by the petitioner by filing a review, which in turn was also ended in dismissal. Thereafter, he raised I.D.No.82 of 2002 before the Tribunal under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal on the ground that the domestic enquiry is vitiated, permitted the parties to adduce their evidence. On his behalf, the petitioner himself was examined as W.W.1. On behalf of the Management, M.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M.1 to M.3 were marked. While appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for the charged period and there is no medical evidence in proof of his defence that he was sick during that period. Disbelieving the version of the petitioner, the Tribunal by the impugned award, dismissed the I.D. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the termination of services of the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges framed against him. It is further submitted that as the petitioner fell sick on the last day, he left the Office by informing the Officers concerned and thereafter, he took treatment, as such, his absence cannot be treated as unauthorized. It is to be noted that pursuant to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, enquiry was conducted by issuing a notice to him to the address, which is available in the service record. He did not respond to the same but he sent a certificate issued by Dr.Habeeb. Thereupon, a letter was addressed to the said doctor with a request to inform the petitioner to attend enquiry. In spite of the same, there was no response. In that view of the matter, an ex parte enquiry was conducted. However, such enquiry was not accepted by the Tribunal, as such, it permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Though the petitioner stated during the examination that he has taken treatment with the three doctors, no documentary evidence was placed on record to show that he was sick and he underwent treatment during the period in which he was absent to duties, on which ground, charge No.1 was framed against him. It is to be further noted that in the cross- examination, the petitioner himself admitted that he did not inform the change of address to the authorities concerned. In that view of the matter, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he approached the authorities concerned of the Corporation in 1996, there is no material to show that he has approached the authorities at any time before 2000. Nearly six years after termination of service, he approached the Divisional Manager in 2000 and filed appeal, which was also ended in dismissal in 2001. There is also no reason or justification for not questioning the order of dismissal for a period of nearly six years. In the absence of any explanation for not approaching the authorities concerned for such unduly long time and also any material to show that he was sick and he took treatment during the period of unauthorized absence as alleged, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award, which warrants interference by this Court. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges framed against him, it is to be noted that in view of sudden disappearance of the petitioner, there is a lot of dislocation in the works of the Corporation and moreover, he has not approached the authorities in a reasonable time after the dismissal order was passed. In view of long lapse of time and laches on the part of the petitioner, the punishment imposed on him, as confirmed by the appellate and review authorities does not call for any interference by this Court on the ground of proportionality also. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd JULY, 2010. kvni