HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.7091 of 2011 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E1/1/(76)/2010-JN, dated 01.03.2011, issued by the second respondent-Depot Manager, Jangaon Depot, Warangal District as illegal and arbitrary. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: - The petitioner was working as a Conductor in the respondents-Corporation. While so, a charge sheet, dated 15.12.2010, was issued alleging that the petitioner absented himself from duties from 05.12.2010 to 15.12.2010, without prior permission or sanction from the competent authority. Subsequently, on 16.12.2010, though the petitioner reported to duty he was not permitted to discharge his duties. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry notice, dated 29.01.2011, fixing the date of enquiry on 31.01.2011 and another enquiry notice, dated 31.01.2011 fixing the date of enquiry on 02.02.2011 were served on him on 02.02.2011 and that though the said facts were brought to the notice of the second respondent, a show cause notice of removal, dated 21.02.2011, was served on him on 22.02.2011 and without waiting for an explanation from him, the impugned order, dated 01.03.2011 was passed removing him from the services. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that as the petitioner unauthorisedly absented from the duties without obtaining prior leave or permission from the competent authority, a report to the said effect was submitted by the Deputy Superintendent, Jangaon Depot, basing on which, the charge sheet, dated 15.12.2010 was issued to the petitioner. Then, the enquiry officer has conducted enquiry and held that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved. Later, the disciplinary authority also, after considering the entire evidence and material on record, came to conclusion that it would be proper to impose the punishment of removal from service and accordingly, issued a show cause notice of removal from service to the petitioner. However, to the said show cause notice, the petitioner neither submitted any explanation nor appeared before the disciplinary authority and hence, the impugned order was passed removing the petitioner from the services of the respondents- Corporation. Further, some of the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, were denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that conducting the enquiry in disciplinary proceedings is not a matter of formality, but the enquiry officer should give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry which enables him to submit his version or defence; that in the instant case, such an opportunity was not given to the petitioner and that sending the letters through certificate of posting fixing the date of enquiry on the next day or the second day is not shown to be a proper opportunity and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC submitted that the petitioner was duly informed about the date of conducting enquiry; that the principles of natural justice have not been violated; and that as the petitioner has not participated in the enquiry, the enquiry officer had no other go except to submit the report to the disciplinary authority and therefore, the impugned order is not liable to be set aside as there is no violation of any right of the petitioner. There cannot be any dispute that the enquiry officer has got every right to conduct an enquiry in relation to misconduct on the part of the employee by duly following the procedure. But, at the same time, when substantial rights of the employee are being affected, he should be given a reasonable opportunity to put forward his case. The charge levelled against the petitioner is that he was absent for about 10 days without taking prior permission or prior sanction of leave from the competent authority. No doubt, in the present case, the enquiry was conducted. As seen from the counter, the enquiry officer sent letters, dated 29.01.2011 and 31.01.2011, under certificate of posting, to the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 31.01.2011 and 02.02.2011, respectively. It is not in dispute that the letter fixing the date of enquiry on 05.02.2011 was not despatched to the petitioner, but it was displayed in the office notice board of Jangaon Depot. Admittedly, petitioner was not residing at Jangaon. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that as he was placed under suspension pending enquiry, he had no other go but to go to his native place-Gullakunta Village in Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal District. So, there was no possibility for the petitioner to know about this final notice calling him to attend the enquiry on 05.02.2011. Insofar as notices, dated 29.01.2011 and 31.01.2011 fixing the dates of enquiry on 31.01.2011 and 02.02.2011, respectively, are concerned, they are said to have been despatched to the petitioner under certificate of posting only on 02.02.2011. In such an event, it is highly impossible for the petitioner to attend the enquiry and submit his case of defence within a span of one day. So, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that a reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forward his case or defence in the enquiry. Reasonable time must be given to enable the petitioner to attend the enquiry. Enquiry should not be an empty formality. Conducting of enquiry must be fair and reasonable. From the facts of the case it can be said that by the time the notices sent by enquiry officer are received by the petitioner, the date fixed for enquiry must have over. There is no possibility or scope for the petitioner. The impugned order is based upon the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. The principle of natural justice viz., “no man should be condemned unheard” is violated by the enquiry officer and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, giving liberty to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry, in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 15th June 2011 dr