THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3148 of 2009 Dated: 29.06.2010 Between: D.Ramanaiah. .. Petitioner. And The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, while the petitioner was serving as Conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) at Alipiri Depot of Chittoor District, he was proceeded with departmentally on the allegation of unauthorized absence to duties, and issued with the charge sheet dated 17.08.2003 enumerating the following charge: “For being not available for 116 days besides leave/off during the period from July 2002 to July 2003 i.e., upto 16.07.2003 by way of unauthorized absence and habituated sick and caused inconvenience to the travelling public and also to the administration which is serious misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees’ Conduct Reg. 1963.” After the explanation was called for and after conducting a detailed enquiry, ultimately, the 4th respondent removed the petitioner from service, by order dated 23.11.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal and review petition before the respondents 3 and 2 respectively and the same were dismissed on 22.01.2005 and 13.02.2006 respectively. Hence, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that on 17.08.2003, the charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner for his unauthorised absence for 116 days besides leave/off during the period from July, 2002 to July, 2003, but he was removed from service on the allegation of his absence during the said period from July, 2002 to July, 2003 and also for the period from 07.11.2004 to 23.11.2004. He further contended that no charge has been framed and no enquiry has been conducted for the period of absence from 07.11.2004 to 23.11.2004 and, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. In this regard, the learned counsel relies on the judgment dated 05.04.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.769 of 2005, wherein it was held as under: “We have no hesitation to observe that in the absence of a specific charge for the alleged unauthorized absence for the period from 16.10.2004 to 19.10.2004, passing of the proceedings impugned by taking into consideration the unauthorized absence for the said period without any charge or enquiry, amounts to depriving the opportunity of the delinquent to defend his case and it also amounts to arbitrariness.” Learned counsel further submits that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment in W.A.No.769 of 2005 referred above and, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be allowed in terms of the said judgment. Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that only a reference as to the subsequent absence of the petitioner to duties from 07.11.2004 to 23.11.2004 was made in the order impugned. Mere mentioning of the subsequent absenteeism would not cause prejudice to the interest of the petitioner and, therefore, the facts of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevancy to the facts of the present case. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. From a perusal of the judgment dated 05.04.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.769 of 2005, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment and, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be allowed in terms of the said judgment in W.A.No.769 of 2005. Accordingly, following the judgment dated 05.04.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.769 of 2005, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2004 passed by the 4th respondent and also the orders dated 22.01.2005 and 13.02.2006 passed by the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 29.06.2010 v v