IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12314 of 2008 Between: K.V.Brahman S/o.Narsaiah R/o.Chilakaluripeta Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C rep.by its Managing Director Bus Bhavan Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C rep.by its Depot Manager Chilakalurpet Guntur District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the respondent and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the show cause Notice of Removal dt.20-05-2008 vide proceedings No.PL/1(15)/2008-CPT issued by 2nd respondent as illegal unjust contrary to law contrary to the provisions of Disabilities at 1995 arbitrary without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice amounts to victimisation unfair labour practice and in violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. A charge sheet, dated 01.03.2008, was issued alleging that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent between 27.11.2007 and 08.02.2008. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.03.2008. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the Depot Manager, the second respondent herein, appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.04.2008, holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Based on the same, the second respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 20.05.2008. The petitioner challenges the same on the ground that the Enquiry Officer submitted an ex parte report without giving opportunity to him Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Even from a perusal of the impugned show cause notice, it is evident that the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is ex parte in nature. The petitioner states that he was served a notice of appearance by the Enquiry Officer on 04.04.2008 at 3.00 p.m., informing that the enquiry would be conducted at 10.00 a.m. on that date. It is stated that the enquiry has been postponed from that date to 08.04.2008 and thereafter to 12.04.2008. The petitioner is said to have sent his son to inform the Enquiry Officer that he would not attend the enquiry on account of sickness. Though three dates of hearing were fixed by the Enquiry Officer, on two such dates, the enquiry could not be proceeded on account of the reasons that cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The only day on which the petitioner was not present was 12.04.2008 on account of his ill-health. The petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to put forward his case. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned show cause notice as well as enquiry report are set aside. The petitioner shall appear before the Enquiry Officer without fail on 23.06.2008, without waiting for any notice. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.06.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}