THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17493 of 1995 Dated: 07.12.2006 Between: V. Ravi … Petitioner AND The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17493 of 1995 ORDER:- The petitioner’s father was an employee of the respondent Corporation and he died on 14.09.1984 while working at Warangal Depot. The petitioner made an application on 20.06.1988 at Basic Training Centre, Hyderabad, for providing employment under a scheme of the respondent Corporation under which 30% posts of Cleaners will be provided to the children of deceased employees of the Corporation. Respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that his brother Sri V. Ashok was already provided with employment under the said scheme and that he deliberately suppressed this fact by keeping column No.6 of the application blank, which seeks to elicit information from the applicants as to whether any of their family members are already provided with employment. As the said act of the petitioner was treated to constitute misconduct by the respondent Corporation, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Two charges were framed, which are extracted as under: “CHARGE NO.1: For having concealed the facts of your brother by name Sri Uduthala Ashok E.301260 S/o. Narsaiah got employment as cleaner at Mancherial depot under employees children quota under bread winner scheme, earlier to your appointment and you have been appointed under the same quota as Mechanic w.e.f. 30.12.1991 on the same of Warangal depot, which resulted two persons employed which is misconduct vide Reg.28 (xxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. CHARGE NO.2: For having cheated the corporation by getting two persons employment by both of brothers on the name of your father Sri Narsaiah E.83587 driver of Warangal depot by concealing the facts of the employment of your brother Sri U.Ashok E.301260 cleaner of Mancherial depot, which constitutes to misconduct vide Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” Enquiry was held against the petitioner and the enquiry officer submitted his report to the respondent Corporation. On the basis of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.07.1997 whereunder the petitioner was called upon to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the punishment of removal from service shall not be imposed upon him. Assailing the charge memo and the show cause notice dated 24.07.1995, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The respondent Corporation filed a counter-affidavit in which it is mentioned that as the circular dated 05.10.1997 issued by the Corporation clearly envisages that only one member of family of the deceased employee is entitled to employment and that admittedly the petitioner’s brother Sri V.Ashok was already provided with employment, the petitioner, suppressing the said fact, applied for and obtained employment. Therefore, the Corporation contends, the said act of the petitioner constituted misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings has been initiated. It is also mentioned in the counter- affidavit that the petitioner was afforded every opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry and that under Clause 28(xxii) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations, the petitioner, who failed to furnish full information, is guilty of misconduct. Therefore, the competent authority called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. According to the respondent Corporation, there is absolutely no legitimate grievance for the petitioner to file the present writ petition. Smt. Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing for Sri Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that as the petitioner is not aware of prohibition under the departmental scheme of providing employment to a second member of the family of the deceased employee, the petitioner innocently applied for and secured employment. Therefore as ex facie his act does not constitute misconduct, the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings is misconceived. Smt. Rajini Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit. Having regard to the rival contentions, I am of the view that the petitioner has abused the process of Court in filing the present writ petition. It is well settled principle of service jurisprudence that the employer always has the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if any of the acts complained against the employee falls within the definition of ‘misconduct’. Whether the act complained of falls within the said definition of ‘misconduct’ or not is the matter, which would be decided in the disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the authority, which initiated the disciplinary proceedings, which framed the charges and issued the show cause notice have jurisdiction to do so. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were malafide nor is it the case of the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by non-observance of Principles of Natural justice or procedural impropriety. The petitioner having faced the enquiry, instead of submitting his explanation to the final show cause notice issued by the respondents, rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition. On the strength of the interim order obtained by the petitioner, he is able to stall the passing of final orders for more than 11 years, thereby abusing the process of Court. None of the contentions raised in the writ petition warrants interdiction of the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against the petitioner, which were at an advanced stage. Ordinarily, the writ petition ought to be dismissed with exemplary costs, but, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to consider the matter with lenience. Therefore, though it is a fit case to saddle the petitioner with exemplary costs, considering the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I refrain from doing so. The writ petition, which is meritless, is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.12.2006 ES