IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.1382 of 2011 Date:07.07.2011 Between: V.V. Rao .....Petitioner AND The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. By its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 others. ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.1382 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner for the alleged absence of 7 days by holding ex-parte enquiry vide proceedings dated 7.7.2009 which was confirmed by the appellate authority and as well as review authority vide proceedings dated 29.7.2010 and proceedings dated 13.12.2010 as illegal and arbitrary, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, contrary to the circular instructions and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to extend all the benefits on par with the colleagues of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner herein was appointed as Driver on contract basis in the month of October, 2008 and working in the 3rd respondent depot. On 6.5.2009 while the petitioner was ready to go for duty, he received a call from his residence stating that his mother was not feeling well. As the mother of the petitioner was suffering from throat cancer and as there was no other male member to look after her, the petitioner rushed to house and admitted her in private hospital and after 2 months only she was recovered and when he went to the depot, he was informed that on the allegation that he was absented for duties for two months and by conducting ex-parte enquiry he was removed from service which is unjust and arbitrary. Hence this writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without conducting any enquiry the impugned proceedings were issued to the petitioner terminating his services on the ground he was absented for duties from 6.5.2009 to 7.7.2009 for two months. He further contended that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved misconduct and hence he prays to set aside the impugned proceedings of the respondents. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents corporation contended that the petitioner was given an opportunity of participating in the enquiry, but he did not participate in the enquiry and therefore an exparte enquiry was conducted and consequently the petitioner was terminated from the service and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the same and the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. Though it is contended that no enquiry is conducted, as seen from the record, it is clear that the enquiry officer issued a notice to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and as the petitioner failed to attend the enquiry, the enquiry was conducted ex parte. Therefore, the petitioner cannot say that no enquiry was conducted. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not receive the notice from the enquiry officer. When the enquiry was conducted properly and the enquiry officer followed the principles of natural justice, ordinarily this court would not interfere with the proceedings issued by the disciplinary authority unless punishment shocks the conscience of the court. 7. There cannot be any dispute that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, it is for the disciplinary authority and on appeal, the appellate authority who are empowered to impose proper punishment. But, the punishment must be proportionate to the proved misconduct. The misconduct is that the petitioner was absent for duties for two months. The case of the petitioner is that his mother was admitted in the private hospital and as such he was forced to stay in the hospital for two months along with his mother and accordingly he gave an explanation to the respondents to that effect that he remained absent for duties for the said period without any leave as it was beyond his control and his absence is wanton or wilful. When the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent against the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent terminating his services, the 2nd respondent rejected the same as time barred. Therefore, considering the fact that the absence is two months and the petitioner gave satisfactory explanation for his unauthorised absence, this court is of the opinion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Hence, the petitioner shall be reinstated into service forthwith. However, by virtue of this order, the petitioner is not entitled for any other monetary or other benefits. But, the petitioner is entitled to the continuity of service for the purpose of regularisation of his services only in the existing or future vacancies. 8. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Date: 07th July, 2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.1382 of 2011 Date: 07.07.2011 Gk.