IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1354 of 2011 DATED: 26.12.2011 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gooty Depot, Anantapur District. ….Appellant And 1.P.Basha Khan, S/o late P.M.Khan Anantapur and 3 others. .. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1354 of 2011 JUDGMENT: ((Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.06.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.No.27256 of 2008 filed by the appellant-writ petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the legal heirs of late P.Mahaboob Khan, who was appointed as a driver in the appellant- Corporation in the year 1987. The deceased workman was removed from service, after conducting enquiry on the ground of his unauthorized absence from 03.03.1990 to 16.03.1990 by the Depot Manager of Dharmavaram vide proceedings dated 25.09.1990. On appeal before the Divisional Manager, the punishment was modified as deferment of annual grade increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and posted him in the Gooty Depot of the Corporation. Again the deceased was removed from service vide order dated 16.12.1992 on the ground of unauthorized absence. The deceased filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager of the Corporation and the same was rejected on 25.12.1994 on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation. Questioning the legality of the removal order dated 16.12.1992, the deceased filed I.D.No.200 of 1997 and during the pendency of the said I.D. the deceased died and consequently the said I.D.No.200 of 1997 was dismissed. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased filed I.D.No.73 of 2003 seeking to set aside the removal order dated 16.12.1992 issued by the Corporation and to direct the Corporation to pay the back wages and other benefits from the date of removal from service till the date of death of the deceased and also to direct the appellant- Corporation to appoint one of the respondents on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. On considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court by the impugned award set aside the order of removal of the deceased holding that the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for back wages for the period from 16.12.1992 to 13.02.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant- Corporation filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the award dated 31.08.2007 passed in I.D.No.73 of 2003. By an order dated 16.06.2011, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the present writ petition holding that the deceased was not all served with any notice before passing order of removal from service. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation contended that the past conduct of the deceased-workman disentitles him for the relief claimed by him, as he was a chronic absentee. She further contended that the punishment of removal is not disproportionate having regard to the gravity of the offence. She further contended that awarding back wages without there being any proof regarding non-employment of the workman during the period of removal is not justified. Per contra, the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is quite legal and valid and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and other material available on record, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that there is violation of principles of natural justice for want of service of notice on the deceased. The objective of an enquiry is that no employee shall be punished without following due process of law and principles of natural justice. Even in the absence of any statutory obligation to issue any notice as per law, in an enquiry, before imposing any punishment, the principles of natural justice requires that a person on whom the punishment is being imposed, should be served with a notice and after the person had received the notice; and, imposing punishment without the person receiving such notice shall be in violation of principles of natural justice. But in the instant case, it was an enquiry without notice at all. Moreover, when the notice is returned un-served or when the addressee is not available, the notice is to be served by way of paper publication because it is mandatory on the part of the appellant- Corporation to see that the enquiry is conducted by following due process of law and by giving notice because in the process of disciplinary action, from the date of initiation of proceedings till the date of removal, the relationship of master and servant still exist. Hence, when the employer initiates to take disciplinary action and consequently removes the employee, it is mandatory on the part of the employer to serve notice on the employee. Under the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge is quite legal and justified and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed upholding the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 26.12.2011 Gsn