IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5235 of 2000 Between: B. Gopal Rao S/o Madhava Rao APSRTC, Kalyandurg Depot, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kalyandurg Depot, Anantapur District. 2 Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur Region, Anantapur. 3 Chief Mechanical Engineer, APSRTC, Anantapur ,Anantapur 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.01/612(1)/96/KDG dated 30-9-96 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional violating Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and issue consequential directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, duly treating the period of suspension as on duty, with all consequential benefits such as salary, increments, leave, wages and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 5235 of 2000 Order: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings No.01/612(1)/96-KDG, dated 30.09.1996, issued by the first respondent-Depot Manager, removing him from service and treating the period of suspension as not on duty for all purposes, as a measure of penalty in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and attached to Kalyandurg Depot in Anantapur district. The Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Kalyandurg, has reported to the Depot Manager of Kalyandurg that the petitioner was arrested at Kambadur check post on 03.01.1996 for having found in possession of six (6) arrack sachets during the check conducted in the bus bearing No. AEZ 2630, in which he was traveling. On noticing such possession of liquor, a case was registered against the petitioner for violation of the provisions of Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Based on the report of the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Kalyandurg, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was charge sheeted by framing the following charge. “For having thee in possession of six (6) arrack sachets at the time of checking at Kambadur check post by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Kambadur on 03.01.1996 while checking the bus No.AEZ 2630 which constitutes misconduct under regulation 28 (XV) (XXXI) (XVII) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the said charge. Having not satisfied with the said explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charge leveled against him. The Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted his report dated 07.06.1996, by recording a finding that the petitioner was in possession of six (6) arrack sachets at the time of exercising a check by the Prohibition and Excise authorities at Kambadur check post on 03.01.1996 while traveling from Pavagoda to Kalyandurg in the bus bearing No. AEZ 2630, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation No.28(XV), (XXXI) and (XVII) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Based on the said enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 03.09.1996 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on him. The petitioner, having received the said show cause notice, did not respond to the same. Thereafter, the Depot Manager, Kalyandurg, issued proceedings No.01/612(1)/96-KDG, dated 30.09.1996, removing the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner preferred appeal and review before the departmental authorities, but he was unsuccessful. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Sri Raju, learned counsel, representing Smt. S.V. Indira, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, has made only one submission, namely the petitioner was not in possession of liquor and the enquiry was not conducted properly by the Enquiry Officer. The copy of the enquiry report is not placed before this Court so as to examine on what basis the findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In the absence of any enquiry report, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not in possession of liquor and the enquiry was not conducted properly by the Enquiry Officer. In any event, it is also not known as to why the petitioner has not availed the effective alternative remedy by questioning the orders of removal before the Industrial Tribunal, which is also empowered to scrutinize the evidence on record, but, without availing such an effective remedy, the petitioner filed the present writ petition disputing the factual aspects. In the absence of any material produced by the petitioner and in the absence of any illegality shown in the conduct of enquiry, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. As no other argument is advanced, as much as the Depot Manager, based on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned removal order, which was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 13.02.2009 Nsr