IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 11518 of 2009 Between: S. Franklin, E. 454756, S/o. Andrew Paul, R/o. Waltair, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hdyerabad. 2 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam Region at Visakhapatnam. 3 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (U), APSRTC, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Waltair, Visakhapatnam 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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in without issuing any fresh charge sheet and not conducting any enquiry and by treating the earlier absence as misconduct, punishing the petitioner for life time by issuing the removal order vide Proc. 01/1(57)/06-WTR, Dt. 22-5-2009, is unjust and against to the principles of natural justice and as such the punishment the order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and as such the punishment the order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to pay the differed wages forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.11518 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. With the consent of the learned Standing Counsel, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, the writ petition has been taken up for hearing and disposal, at the stage of admission. This writ petition has been instituted by a Driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Depot Manager on 22.05.2009, imposing a punishment of removal from service. The Depot Manager has issued a charge sheet on 23.10.2006 alleging misconduct of unauthorized absence between 09.10.2006 to 14.10.2006 against the writ petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in an enquiry being conducted into the said charge. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty and thereafter, the Depot Manager has also issued a show-cause notice on 03.02.2007 proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service. The writ petitioner/employee has also submitted his explanation thereto on 29.05.2007. No final orders have been passed on the said explanation for the past nearly two years. In the interregnum, the writ petitioner alleges that he fell sick and has in fact been referred to receive treatment, and while he was undergoing treatment for his ailment, he has been subjected to imposing the punishment of removal from service through the impugned order. While passing the present order, the Depot Manager has also taken into account and consideration the fact that the writ petitioner has abstained from service unauthorizedly once again between 04.12.2006 to 29.12.2006 and also from 13.05.2009 till 22.05.2009. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner points out that this alleged misconduct said to have been committed by the writ petitioner was not the subject matter of the charge sheet issued by the Depot Manager on 23.10.2006. It is so obvious that the alleged misconduct said to have been committed by the writ petitioner by his unauthorized absence in the month of December, 2006 and during the month May, 2009 could not have been formed part of charge sheet issued in October, 2006. The disciplinary proceedings initiated through the charge memo will have to be finalized uninfluenced by any other factors or considerations. If extraneous material forms part of consideration while imposing a major punishment, such as removal from service, the entire exercise gets vitiated, for, the employee concerned would not have had an opportunity to defend himself against this extraneous material. No person should ever be condemned unheard. The basic right to have an opportunity before being condemned, is considered to be too primordial to be dispensed with. Long years ago, it has been recognized that an adverse order passed against any person without providing any opportunity whatsoever is liable to be declared as to have been vitiated for failure to comply with the principles of natural justice, apart from failing to comply with the procedural safeguards evolved through the Disciplinary Control Rules/Regulations framed by the Corporation. In fact, this very question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment rendered on 05.04.2005 in W.A.No.769 of 2005, to which the APSRTC is a party. It is rather sad that the orders which are likely to visit the parties with serious consequences, such as removal from service or dismissal from service, are passed casually without any serious application of mind by the disciplinary authorities and the APSRTC itself does not appear to be updating and advising correctly and properly all its disciplinary authorities not to commit the same mistakes all over again. In normal circumstances, this Court would be reluctant to entertain a writ petition instituted without availing effective alternative remedy. But, however, when the principles of natural justice are violated, Courts have been entertaining such writ petitions even though an effective alternative remedy may not have been exhausted. I, therefore, prefer to exercise the discretion of entertaining this writ petition, as I find the impugned order to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. I, therefore, allow this writ petition, set aside the impugned order, direct the Depot Manager to take into account and consideration the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner and pass a reasoned order duly applying his mind to the explanation submitted and the material collected by the Enquiry Officer. Since the impugned order is set aside all due to the fault and mistake committed by the Depot Manager, it is open to the APSRTC to take such suitable measures and steps including administering a warning to the erring Depot Manager, while leaving liberty to the disciplinary authority and the Corporation to proceed against the writ petitioner appropriately. It is time that the Corporation updates all the disciplinary authorities by furnishing the ‘dos and don’ts’ while exercising their disciplinary power, lest the errors would not be stopped from being committed by them in future even. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Dt.12.06.2009. VGB