IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5193 of 1999 Between: Md.Ahmed Ali, S/o. Md.Ghouse, R/o.H.No.16-9-408/p/102, Wahednagar Colony, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad-36. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Labour Court - I, rep.by its Presiding Officer, IInd Floor, M.J. Road, Chandravihar Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad Zone, Imliban Bus Station Complex, Gouliguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC (Golconda Region) Now Hyderabad City Region, J.B.S., Picket, Secunderabad-3. .....RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records from the ﬁrst respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the First respondent in I.D.No.129/97 dated 19.11.98, published on 30.12.98 and grant the relief of reinstatement with full backwages and all other attendent beneﬁts; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for Respondent: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the award passed by the ﬁrst respondent-Labour Court in I.D.No.129/97 dated 19.11.1998, published on 30.12.1998. The petitioner was initially appointed as a junior assistant in the second respondent-Corporation on 5.02.1962. He was promoted as Senior Assistant on 3.06.1968. He was further promoted as Assistant Accountant on 31.03.1975, and ﬁnally, as Accountant on 13.03.1978. Initially, the petitioner has applied for leave for a period of six months from 17.08.1983 on the ground that he has to bring his sister from Saudi Arabia to India. The said leave was granted by the respondents only up to 31.12.1983. Thereafter, extension of leave was sought for on the ground that his sister had met with an accident and was undergoing treatment in Saudi Arabia, and thereafter, another extension was sought for on the ground that his wife fell sick. The leave was extended from time to time, and ﬁnally, it was extended up to 31.05.1985. Though further extension was sought for, the respondents have refused to extend the leave and warned of initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner, if he fails to resume duty. But, in spite of the same, he did not resume duty. In view of his unauthorized absence, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and a domestic enquiry was also conducted. In the enquiry proceedings, initially, a notice was served on the petitioner, which was received by him but did not respond to it. Therefore, a further notice was served on him. But, in spite of the same, as there was no response from the petitioner, the enquiry oﬃcer has ﬁled his report. Basing on the enquiry report, an order of removal was passed against the petitioner on 3.06.1992. Even thereafter, for four long years, there was no representation from the petitioner. On 13.11.1996, though the petitioner has made a representation seeking to allow him to join duty, he was not allowed, but a copy of removal order dated 3.06.1992 was furnished to him. The petitioner has unsuccessfully availed the departmental remedies by way of appeal and revision. Thereafter, he also raised an industrial dispute by way of ﬁling I.D.No.129 of 1997 before the Labour Court, and the Labour Court, after elaborately considering various issues raised by the petitioner, dismissed the I.D. As no relief is granted to him in the earlier proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of ﬁling the present writ petition. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under the law, and that the removal order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that though a notice was served on the petitioner in the given address, but at the same time, after completion of enquiry, no show cause notice was served on him before passing the order of removal. It is further submitted that the order of removal was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Regulations of the Corporation. In this case, it is not disputed that initially, the petitioner has proceeded on leave from 17.08.1983 to 31.12.1983. Even after the expiry of said leave, on the representation of the petitioner, the leave was extended from time to time and as a last chance, it was extended up to 31.05.1985. Though the petitioner was warned of serious disciplinary action in the event of not reporting to duty, he did not join duty and he was absent unauthorizedly for number of years thereafter. As the petitioner did not respond even after service of notice of enquiry and departmental proceedings, the enquiry oﬃcer has submitted his report, and basing on the said report, an order of removal was passed against the petitioner. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the enquiry report, no show cause notice was served on him, but however, in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that after completion of enquiry, a show cause notice was sent to the address furnished by the petitioner, but the same was returned undelivered by the postal authorities with an endorsement that “addressee is not in the given address”. Hence it was pasted to the door, and thereafter, removal order was passed, removing the petitioner from service. In the above said circumstances, it cannot be said that either the removal order passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice or contrary to the regulations governing the disciplinary proceedings. Further, it is to be noted that though the period for which the leave was extended, was expired in the year 1985, the petitioner has made a representation, seeking to allow him to join duty, only in the year 1996. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has unauthorisedly absented himself from duty for the period from 1985 to 1996, and as such, after conducting necessary enquiry, the order of removal was passed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, aﬃrming the ﬁndings recorded by the disciplinary authority basing on the enquiry report, does not warrant any interference. I do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the proceedings, warranting interference by this Court. However, it is pleaded that as the petitioner has put up about 30 years of service, he is entitled to certain monetary beneﬁts for the period for which he has rendered service. In respect of monetary beneﬁts payable to the petitioner on account of the service rendered by him, he shall make an application to the concerned authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on ﬁling of such application, the respondents shall consider the same and determine the amounts payable to the petitioner, and if it is found that any amounts are due to be paid to the petitioner, the same may be paid to him within a period of three weeks from the date of his application. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 11th August, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Labour Court - I, rep.by its Presiding Officer, IInd Floor, M.J. Road, Chandravihar Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad Zone, Imliban Bus Station Complex, Gouliguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC (Golconda Region) Now Hyderabad City Region, J.B.S., Picket, Secunderabad-3. 4 2 CD copies.