THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.26525 OF 2003 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 20.5.2003 passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.1/2001 in conﬁrming the order of removal passed by the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jeedimetal Depot, Rangareddy District, the petitioner who was working as Mechanic in the Corporation, filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner was engaged as cleaner on daily wages on 13.6.1989 and was promoted as Mechanic Grade-II with eﬀect from 11.8.1994 and was attached to the respondent Depot. On the ground that the petitioner absented from duty unauthorizedly from 4.9.1994 to 8.10.1994 without any intimation or prior sanction of leave, the Assistant Engineer (M) of the respondent – Depot submitted a report and based on the report, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. The said charge sheet was returned un-served with endorsement ‘no such addressee’ and after aﬃxing the same on the notice board, the Depot Superintendent (Personnel) of Jeedimetal Depot, conducted enquiry and during the enquiry, the petitioner oﬀered his statement, stating that he was under treatment from 6.9.1994 to 20.10.1994, as he was suﬀering from Typhoid and hence could not attend to duties. Not being satisﬁed with the explanation of the petitioner, the enquiry oﬃcer submitted report stating that the charges are proved. Hence, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice on 29.10.1994 and though the petitioner received the same, failed to submit his explanation and however, to give one more opportunity, the petitioner was taken on duty on 26.10.1994 pending disciplinary action. Again the petitioner absented from duty without intimation. The period of absence is as under: In the month of November, 1994 -- 4 days In the month of December, 1994 -- 2 days In the month of January, 1995 -- 9 days In the month of February, 1995 -- 16 days In the month of March, 1995 -- 4 days In the month of April, 1995 --12 days In the month of May, 1995 -- Continuously absented from 1.5.1995 on wards. 4. However, in order to provide one more opportunity, the petitioner was addressed a letter dated 24.5.1995 advising him to report duty immediately, failing which, further action would be taking pending show cause notice. But the said letter was returned un- served with endorsement ‘ no such address’. Thereafter, ﬁnal orders of removal from service was issued by proceedings dated 16.9.1995. The said removal order was returned undelivered. On 12.11.1996 the petitioner approached the respondent no.2 stating that his mother seriously fell sick, due to which, he could not attend to his duties and requested to furnish the order of removal. Challenging the same, he raised I.D. 5. The Tribunal conﬁrmed the order of removal from service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. No counter affidavit is filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner absented from duty due to ill-health and he also produced medical certiﬁcate to that eﬀect. The petitioner was referred to the superintendent and Chief Medical Oﬃcer of APSRTC, Hospital at Tarnaka and he issued Ex.M-7 medial certificate. He further submitted that the disciplinary authority has taken the subsequent period, for which no charge has been framed and without conducting enquiry, the order of removal was inﬂicted and the Tribunal by not considering this factor, conﬁrmed the order of removal. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned award. 8. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the petitioner was in the habit of absenting from duty unauthorizedly and as the charge against the petitioner was proved in the departmental enquiry, he was inﬂicted with the punishment of removal from service and the same was rightly conﬁrmed by the Tribunal by appreciating the evidence on record and the same cannot be interfered with under the writ jurisdiction and hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. The charge against the petitioner is as under: “For having remained unauthorizedly absent to you duties w.e.f. 4.9.1994 to till date without prior sanction of leave nor any intimation aﬀecting the maintenance work”. 10. The case of the petitioner is that he attended to duty on 3.9.1994 from 10.30 hours to 07.00 hours and that he attended relief duty at 7-00 hours and returned to the depot at 11-30 hours and the Superintendent (M) promised that he would marked C oﬀ on 4.9.1994 and on 5.9.1994 there was charted oﬀ and hence he went to his native place at Narayanpet and there, he suﬀered etching problem and fever and he reported at Government Hospital, where he was advised to report at Fever hospital and thus he has undergone treatment from 6.9.1994 to 20.10.1994 and reported for duty duly producing the sick certiﬁcate. The enquiry oﬃcer based on the evidence, found that the petitioner left the head quarters without obtaining permission from his superiors and had also not submitted the sick certiﬁcate within 48 hours and he remained absent for a period of over 45 days without intimation or prior sanction of leave. The enquiry oﬃcer also found that the medical oﬃcer at Tarnaka has not accepted the Primary Medical Certiﬁcate submitted by the petitioner covering the period from 6.9.1994 to 19.10.1994 and thus held the petitioner guilty of the charge. 11. There is no dispute that the petitioner was taken on duty on 26.10.1994 and again he was issued show cause noticed dated 29.10.1994 and the ﬁnal action was kept in abeyance and as per the case of the Corporation, the said action was to give an opportunity to the petitioner to improve his attendance. The further case of the corporation is that after resuming to duty on 26.10.1994, the petitioner again remained irregular. The period of absence is extracted at paragraph no. 3 above, while narrating the facts. It is to be conspicuously noticed that the disciplinary authority, while inﬂicting the punishment of removal from service, has taken the period, for which no enquiry was conducted. The relevant portion in the order of removal dated 16.6.1995 at paragraph no.2 at page no.3, is extracted as under for better appreciation: “In spite of having issued him a show cause notice of removal from service and provided him ample opportunity to improve his attendance, there is no change in the attitude of the mechanic. His highly irregular attendance and continuous absence from 1.5.1995 onwards goes to prove that the mechanic has no interest to serve in the Corporation. He is, therefore, considered as an unproﬁtable employee to the Corporation.” 12. From the above paragraph in the order of removal dated 16.6.1995, the disciplinary authority has taken the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 1.5.1995 onwards for inﬂicting the punishment of removal from service. The charge against the petitioner is that he absented from duty from 4.9.1994 on wards. The petitioner submitted a private certiﬁcate for the period of treatment from 6.9.1994 to 20.10.1994 and he was permitted to join duty on 26.10.1994 and there after, the action on the ﬁnal show cause notice was kept in abeyance. A careful perusal of the removal order dated 16.6.1995 would reveal that the period, which has been taken into consideration for inﬂicting the punishment of removal from service, there was no enquiry. This factor has not been examined by the Tribunal and it was inﬂuenced by the factor of unauthorized absence of the petitioner for the subsequent period of the charge, for which no enquiry was conducted and this amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. For this reason, the impugned award and the oral of removal dated 16.6.1995 have to be set aside. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned award and the order of removal dated 16.6.1995 are set aside and consequently the respondent no.2 shall reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages and with continuity of service. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS --------------------------------- - 22-10--2008