IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4369 of 2008 Between: Gollapalli Atchha Rao S/o.Venkata Rao R/o.Ramachandrapuram, Kirlampoodi Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Depot Manager, Eleswaram, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT 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 impugned proceedings dated 22.1.2008 in No.PA/1(40)/05-ELSM issued by the respondent herein removing the petitioner from service without conducting enquiry as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same directing the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits such as salaries, seniority, increments etc., and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.A.RAZAK Counsel for the Respondent: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Driver in the Eleswaram Depot of APSRTC. He was issued a charge sheet on 31.08.2005, alleging that he remained unauthorisedly absent from 21.08.2005 to 30.08.2005, without any sanctioned leave. The petitioner submitted his explanation and domestic enquiry into the said charge was conducted. A report is said to have been submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 15.09.2005, holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 16.09.2005, requiring the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner acknowledged the show cause notice, but did not submit any explanation. The matter, however, did not proceed further. On the basis of the report, dated 22.01.2008, said to have been submitted by the Deputy Superintendent(T)/ELSM, the respondent passed an order, on the same day, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis on which the petitioner was removed from service was not the subject matter of the charge sheet, much less the departmental enquiry. He contends that the petitioner was removed only on the basis of the report, dated 22.01.2008, submitted by the Deputy Superintendent, and no enquiry in relation there to was conducted. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the previous conduct of the petitioner was taken into account, while passing the impugned order and reference to the report of the Deputy Superintendent is only casual in nature. As observed earlier, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated with the issuance of a charge sheet, dated 31.08.2005. The only charge was that the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly for a period of one week in August, 2005. Had any order of removal been passed, on the basis of the enquiry report in relation thereto, no exception could have been taken, and at the most, the petitioner could have assailed the order of removal in the departmental appeal and review, or before the Labour Court. The impugned order, however, discloses that the reason, or ground that prompted the respondent to remove the petitioner from service is the report, dated 22.01.2008, submitted by the Deputy Superintendent, alleging that the petitioner is unauthorisedly absent. Admittedly, neither any charge was framed in relation thereto, nor any enquiry was conducted. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from a serious legal infirmity. On this short ground, the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the petitioner to take necessary steps in accordance with law, duly following the prescribed procedure. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.02.05.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}