THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22350 OF 2008 DATED 29th NOVEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN T.Chiranjeevi … Petitioner And APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22350 OF 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, a Casual Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), was removed from service under proceedings dated 12.09.2008 in connection with his unauthorized absence. Assailing the same he is before this Court. By order dated 22.10.2008, this Court suspended the impugned proceedings and directed the APSRTC to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties. The basis for the petitioner’s removal from service was his unauthorized absence on 02.04.2008 and 03.04.2008. This was the subject matter of the charge-sheet dated 03.04.2008 which led to an enquiry being initiated in to the matter. However, the impugned proceedings dated 12.09.2008 reflect that the Depot Manager, Gadwal, APSRTC, being the disciplinary authority, took into account not only the proved unauthorized absence of the petitioner on 02.04.2008 and 03.04.2008 but also his subsequent absence from 03.09.2008 to 11.09.2008. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated in respect of this subsequent alleged unauthorized absence. That being so, it was not open to the APSRTC to rely upon the same while forming a conclusion that the petitioner was not interested in his job and had become unprofitable to it. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in which I was a member, in D.YADAGIRI V/s. THE APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD[1]. Faced with a similar fact situation, the Bench observed: “4. It is manifest that the appellant was not subjected to any disciplinary proceedings or inquiry with regard to the alleged unauthorized absence from 08-08-2008 to 30-08-2008. However, an adverse inference has been drawn against him, based on the said alleged unauthorized absence by the disciplinary authority and the punishment of removal from service was imposed upon him. 5. It is not open to Disciplinary Authority to take into account the subsequent un-authorised absence, which was not put to the employee and it was not made the subject matter of enquiry before relying upon the same in the matter of imposition of punishment. …” Viewed thus, the proceedings dated 12.09.2008 passed by the APSRTC removing the petitioner from service cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 29th NOVEMBER, 2010 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22350 OF 2008 29th NOVEMBER, 2010 [1] W.A.NO.1126 OF 2009, Dt.12.11.2009