IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19138 of 2002 Between: C. Rama Krishna Rao S/o.C.L.Narayana Rao R/o.2-284, 3rd Road, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Director[C&N], M.G.B.S.Imblibun Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ananthapur Region, Ananthapur .....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 issue Writ order or direction more particular one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No.PA/19[4]/2002-ED [C&N] dated 10-4-2002 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two [2] years and other benefits to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the proceedings No.PA/19(4)/2002- ED[C&N] dated 10.4.2002 by granting continuity of service i.e., from the date of termination to till the date of reinstatement, annual increments, back wages and attendant benefits as if he had been in service for the purpose and pass such other Solemnly affirm and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Traffic Manager in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in Anantapur Region, has filed this writ petition, challenging the order of the 3rd respondent-disciplinary authority, dated 19.03.2002, passed in Proceedings No.P1/430(1)/2001.RM.A, removing him from service, and the further order of the 2nd respondent-appellate authority in Proceedings No.PA/19(4)/2002-ED(C&N), dated 10.04.2002, confirming the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent. 2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, on the ground that he has absconded from duties, and a charge sheet dated 05.10.2001, was issued to him, by framing the following three charges : “(1) For having failed to report for duty on 28-09- 2001 even after advising you to do so which constitute misconduct as per Reg.28(viii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. (2) For having produced sick certificate from Local Government Hospital, Anantapur from 29-09-01 advising you rest for one month even though RTC dispensary is available at Anantapur from where initially you have produced sick certificate, thus treated as absence for duties which constitute misconduct as per Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. (3) For having absented for duties unauthorisedly from 29-09-2001 thus leading to pendency of cases without completion of enquiry thereby leading to I.R. problem and unnecessary payment of subsistence allowance to the suspended employees in Anantapur Region which constitute misconduct as per Reg.28(xxvii) & (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. 3. As there was no response to the above charge sheet issued and sent to the address of the petitioner available on record, an inquiry was ordered to inquire into the said charges, by appointing an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry, has submitted his report, dated 05.12.2001, holding that all the three charges levelled against the petitioner, are proved. Based on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the 3rd respondent- disciplinary authority, after issuing a show-cause notice, has passed orders, dated 19.03.2002, in Proceedings No. P1/430(1)/2001.RM.A, removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation. As against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Executive Director. The appellate authority, though agreed with the findings recorded by the preliminary authority, but considering the length of service rendered by the petitioner, has ordered for his reinstatement, and further ordered to treat the period of absence as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leave, wages and increments. At the same time, he has imposed the punishment of deferring annual increments for a period of two years, which shall not have effect on the future increments. 4. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner fell sick due to fever and body pains, and as such, he has taken treatment in APSRTC dispensary from 12.09.2001 to 28.09.2001, and thereafter, he has taken treatment in Government headquarters hospital at Anantapur. It is his contention that as the petitioner was sending sick certificates issued by the Government Doctors, there was no basis for recording a finding that the charges levelled against him are proved. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation that though there was facility available in the APSRTC dispensary itself for treatment of the petitioner, he did not continue to take treatment in the said dispensary beyond 28.09.2001, and he has absconded from duties without any valid reasons. 6. With reference to the charges framed against the petitioner, it is to be seen that so far as charge No.1 is concerned, it is to the effect that he failed to report for duty on 28.09.2001. In his explanation to the said charge, the petitioner has categorically stated that he was taking treatment in the APSRTC dispensary up to 28.09.2001, and as such, he could not report for duty on 28.09.2001, but inspite of such a defence, no reason is recorded by the inquiry officer while recording adverse findings on the said charge. The inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have recorded findings against the petitioner with reference to Charge No.1, by merely stating that he was not available on the address which was on record, and he failed to intimate the address where he was staying. Except the said reason, no other reason is recorded. Therefore, so far as Charge No.1 is concerned, the findings recorded by both the disciplinary and the appellate authorities are totally perverse and not based on the evidence on record. 7. However, with reference to charge Nos.2 and 3 i.e. not producing the sick certificate from the concerned RTC dispensary and unauthorisedly absenting from duty from 29.09.2001 onwards, it is to be seen that though the petitioner has taken treatment as an outpatient from 29.09.2001 in the Government hospital, but at the same time, he failed to obtain the counter-signature from the doctor of RTC dispensary, on the sick certificates issued by such Government hospital. It is stated in the inquiry report that the petitioner has failed to approach the RTC dispensary and his sick certificates were not counter- signed by the Doctor of RTC dispensary. From the inquiry report, it is evident that the petitioner was avoiding the doctors of RTC dispensary so as to continue on leave under the guise of sick certification by the doctors of Government hospital. Upon a perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, and also upon perusing the inquiry report, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, so far as charge Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. Even according to the statement given by the petitioner-employee, he was taking treatment only as an outpatient in the Government hospital, and as such, there was no reason at all for his not reporting to the officials and also for not obtaining certification from the competent doctor of the dispensary. In that view of the matter, insofar as charge Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the findings are correctly recorded by the inquiry officer, and the same are in consonance with the evidence on record. In any event, though the disciplinary authority has ordered for removal of petitioner from service, the appellate authority, inspite of approving the findings recorded by the preliminary authority, but taking into account the length of service rendered by the petitioner, has already ordered for his reinstatement, by imposing a minor punishment. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the disciplinary and the appellate authorities. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th March 2009. ajr