IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 25953 of 1999 Between: V. Yesuratna Raju S/o.Adam R/o.Near Prasanthi Vidya Niketan, Tiruvuru-521 235, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., R.T.C Cross Roads, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, Krishna Regions, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada. 3 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada, 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada, .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ or order or direction more fully in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent No.PA/20(49)/94-RM(V) dated 23-5-1995 in so far as it went against the petitioner and consequently grant the petitioner back wages, protection of pay, increments and all consequential beneﬁts attached to the post of conductor and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner who was working as a Conductor in Tiruvuru Depot of the respondent-Corporation has questioned the order of the revisional authority vide proceedings No.PA/20(49)/94-RM(V) dated 25-03-1995 to the extent of placing him in the minimum of the scale of the Conductor and not granting him the back wages, increments and attendant beneﬁts and seeks, by way of Mandamum, to grant him the back wages, protection of pay, increments and all consequential benefits attached to the post of Conductor. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation in 1993, on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent to his duties from 01-10-1993 to 15-10-1993 without any intimation, prior sanction of leave or producing any valid medical certiﬁcate, a charge memo was issued against him by framing the following charge. “For having absented for your duties unauthorisedly from 01-10-93 to 15-10-93 without any intimation, prior sanction of leave or producing any valid medical certiﬁcate which resulted in dislocation of services and inconvenience caused to the travelling public. This constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxviii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1963” On the aforesaid misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and ultimately the 4th respondent being the primary authority passed an order of removal from service against him vide proceedings No.PA/27(23)/94-K dated 29-06-1994. The matter was carried in appeal before the 3rd respondent-appellate authority which rejected the same vide proceedings No.E2/1(72)/93-TVR dated 07-02-1994. Thereafter, the petitioner ﬁled a review petition before the 2nd respondent–revisional authority challenging the order passed by the appellate authority. Even the revisional authority has concurred with the ﬁnding of the primary authority as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority over the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, but however, has taken a sympathetic view and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages while considering the period of absence as ‘not on duty’ and it is further ordered that he is to be placed in the minimum of the scale of the Conductor on reinstatement. It is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as he was admitted in Jyothi Nursing Home at Tiruvuru due to ill-health, he could not attend to his duties for the period in question i.e. from 01-10-93 to 15-10-93 and he was erroneously removed from service by the primary authority. Though the said fact was established before the revisional authority, it merely ordered his reinstatement as a fresh candidate depriving him the beneﬁt of continuity of service and the increments etc. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. From a perusal of the orders passed by the primary and appellate authorities, it is clear that though an opportunity was given to the petitioner by framing a charge, he did not participate in the said enquiry and no material was placed before the enquiry oﬃcer or the disciplinary authority to show that he could not attend to his duties during the period from 01-10-93 to 15-10-93 on account of his ill-health. In that view of the matter, on the proven misconduct the primary authority passed orders removing him from service and the appellate authority also conﬁrmed the same. Even the revisional authority, though concurred with the ﬁnding of the primary and appellate authorities, has, however, considered the matter sympathetically and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner placing him in the minimum of the scale attached to the post of Conductor. Whether the absence was unauthorized or not is a matter to be decided after conducting enquiry and there was a concurrent ﬁnding by the primary, appellate and revisional authorities. At this juncture, it is not open for this Court to examine the said issue in a writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the enquiry was conducted by following the due procedure and since no ground is raised questioning the conduct of enquiry, the mere statement that he could not be present during the period of absence due to ill-health, cannot be accepted. Even the revisional authority has sympathetically considered the matter and granted such a relief and the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief. It is also to be noted that the revisional authority passed orders as early as on 25-03-1995, whereas this writ petition is ﬁled on 17-12-1999 i.e. nearly more than 4 years thereafter. There is also no explanation by the petitioner for such abnormal delay and laches on his part. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 04th November 2008 CVRK