IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19263 of 2000 Between: D Hussain Peera, S/o D Hussain Saheb R/o 8-135-1C, Ravindra Nagar, Cuddapah District. ..... 1ST PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its Regional Manager, (Krishnadevaraya Region) Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Depot Manager, Cuddapah Depot, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent by modifying the Appeal order dt.11/1/1991 by its proceedings No.St/20B/(126)/91-RM'C' dt. 30/7/91 i.e., fresh appointment is modified as reinstatement of Reinstatement his pay be fixed at the minimum as reinstatement his pay be fixed at the minimum of the Scale of pay. The period of absence from the date of unauthorised absence till he reported for duty on fresh appointment as per Divisional Manager orders be treated as not on duty for the purpose of Leave & Wages is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and violative of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Consitution of India and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents to pay his regular pay scale as per reinstatement and with full arrears and wages and other attendant benefits and treat his unauthorised absence till he reported for duty on fresh appointment as per Divisional Manager order be treated as on duty for the purpose of Leave and Wages and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the 1st petitioner:MS.B.MALLESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BDLNM} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBASH REDDY W.P.No.19263 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the 1st petitioner, who died during pendency of the writ petition, questioning the validity of the order of the appellate authority dated 11-01-1991, and further order of the review authority i.e. 2nd respondent-Regional Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’), Kadapa, dated 30-07-1991, passed in proceedings in No.St/20B (126)/91-RM’C’. 2. The 1st petitioner was working as a painter in the respondent-Corporation in its depot in Kadapa. On the ground that he was on sanctioned leave from 22-05-1989 to 05-06-1989, but afterwards, he was unauthorisedly absent with effect from 06-06-1989, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. In the charge sheet issued to the 1st petitioner two charges are framed against him, which read as under: “Charge No.1:- For having absented unauthorisedly for your duties from 06-06-1989 to till date in continuation of sanctioned leave from 22-05-1989 to 05-06-1989, which is a misconduct. Charge No.2:- For having caused dislocation of the painting work during your absence from 06-06-1989 to till date which is a misconduct.” 3. As there was no response to the charge sheet issued to the 1st petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations levelled against the 1st petitioner. The enquiry was conducted by issuing notice to the 1st petitioner, at the address, which is available on record, but the same was returned with an endorsement “addressee left, whereabouts are not known”. Thereupon, the enquiry officer has conducted ex parte enquiry and recorded his findings to the effect that both the charges levelled against the 1st petitioner are proved. 4. Based on the above enquiry report, dated 12-10-1989, the disciplinary authority was passed final orders dated 25-11-1989, imposing the punishment of removal of the 1st petitioner from service with effect from 25-11-1989. As against the said order, the 1st petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Divisional Manager, Kadapa. The appellate Authority, by its order dated 11-01-1991, while agreeing with the views expressed by the disciplinary authority, but however, taking into account the service rendered by the 1st petitioner, has modified the punishment and ordered for his appointment as a fresh candidate, but imposed the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with its effect on future increments. 5. Against the order of the appellate authority, dated 11-01-1991, the 1st petitioner has carried the matter further, by way of a review before the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager of Kadapa Region. By his order, dated 30-07-1991, the 2nd respondent-review authority has further modified the punishment i.e. fresh appointment is modified to that of reinstatement and has further ordered that after reinstatement, the pay of 1st petitioner be fixed at the minimum scale of pay, and the period of absence be treated as ‘not on duty’. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 7. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders were passed without conducting proper enquiry. It is further submitted that as his brother fell sick in Bombay, the 1st petitioner had to stay back in Bombay and he has sent telegrams to the respondent-Corporation for extension of his leave. It is further submitted that in any event, the punishment imposed is dis-proportionate to the gravity of the charges leveled against the 1st petitioner-employee. 8. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation that in spite of the fact the charges leveled against the 1st petitioner are held proved in the enquiry, the review authority has taken a lenient view, and further modified the punishment imposed on the 1st petitioner, which was earlier modified by the appellate authority, and in that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of punishment imposed on the 1st petitioner. 9. In this case, it is to be seen that the 1st petitioner was on a sanctioned leave only from 22-05-1981 to 05-06-1989. But from 06- 06-1989 onwards, he had unauthorizedly absented from duties, and though notices were sent in the domestic enquiry proceedings, they were not served, and returned with an endorsement “addressee left, whereabouts are not known”. 10. As seen from the record, the respondents have sent notice to the address available on record, which was furnished by the 1st petitioner himself. Since notices were returned un-served, there was no other option for the respondent-Corporation, except to conduct an ex parte enquiry. The period of absence from 06-06-1989 is not even disputed by the 1st petitioner, but his only defence was that he had to stay back in Bombay to attend his ailing brother and he has sent telegrams for extension of leave. The review authority, in its order, has clearly stated that there is no such telegram sent to the respondent-Corporation and received by them. 11. For any reason, if the 1st petitioner was not able to attend from 06-06-1989 onwards, he would have filed a representation for seeking extension of leave. In spite of giving opportunity, no material was placed before the authorities to prove that he sought for extension of leave beyond 05-06-1989. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the 1st petitioner was not unauthorisedly absented from 06-06-1989 onwards. Though the Depot Manager has ordered for removal of the 1st petitioner, in the appeal filed by him, the Divisional Manager has ordered for appointment of the 1st petitioner as a fresh candidate. Further, in the review filed by the 1st petitioner, the said punishment ordered by the appellate authority also is further modified and a lenient view is taken by reinstating the 1st petitioner in continuation of his earlier appointment, and the punishment is reduced to reduction of pay on reinstatement, and it was directed that his pay be fixed at minimum scale. 13. Therefore, in view of the proven misconduct, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges leveled against the 1st petitioner. Even looking at his past conduct, as evident from the counter, on five occasions, the 1st petitioner was censured on 14-12- 1981, 15-12-1981, 31-08-1982, 03-10-1994 and 22-07-1998, on various charges. He has also suffered orders, wherein, increments were deferred for one year by proceedings, dated 26-08-1986, and such further punishments were also imposed by orders, dated 23-01- 1987 and 13-08-1997. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground in this writ petition, for grant of any further relief. 14. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cots. ______________________ 20th March 2009 KVR