IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 14023 of 2009 Between: D.B.R.Yadav S/o.D.Pichaiah yadav R/o.Kodad,Address for communication H.No.18-578 Santhinagar, Ward No.22, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director 2 The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Andhra PRadesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nalgonda 3 The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kodad Depot, Kodad .....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 an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declare the proceedings No.P2/1(77)/07-KDD dated 27.6.2009 issued by the Depot Manager, APSRTC Kodad Depot imposing the punishment of removal from service as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court at the stage of admission made the following O R D E R : This Writ Petition is directed against an order passed on 27th June 2009 by the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kodad Depot, the 3rd respondent herein, who, through the impugned order, inflicted the punishment of removal from service on the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has been proceeded against as a measure of discipline by the 3rd respondent - Depot Manager by framing a charge sheet through his proceedings, dated 31st December 2007. The charge sets out that the writ petitioner was found to have unauthorizedly absented from duties from 24th September 2007 to 28th December 2007. It is alleged that because he has not even left any intimation with regard to his absence, nor did he obtain any prior permission for staying away from duty, it amounted to misconduct. However, departing from the charge sheet where this specific allegation has been made, the Depot Manager concluded the matter as under: “ It is seen from the case that the delinquent has absent for duties from 24th July 2007 to 28th December 2007 and 19th April 2009 till date without sanction of leave……..”. This order is ex facie illegal, for, the Depot Manager has travelled beyond the imputation contained in the charge sheet, dated 31st December 2007. It should have occurred to the 3rd respondent - Depot Manager that he had to confine his consideration only to the material available on record. He cannot take any other extraneous material into consideration. The fact that the writ petitioner has been found absent from duties from 19th April 2009 till 27th June 2009 could not have been taken into consideration by him at all. For this reason alone, the impugned order deserves to be set at naught. However, it is worthy to note that the writ petitioner joined the service of the Corporation, to begin with as a Driver. After having rendered a considerable length of service, he was found to be suffering from defective vision and consequently, medically decategorized on 28th September 2004. However, entertaining the representation made by the writ petitioner seeking alternative employment in terms of the provision contained under Section 47 of t h e Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the writ petitioner has been taken back to duty as a Sramik as an alternative employment, and orders were passed to that effect through the proceedings, dated 2nd May 2007. He was posted to work at the maintenance garage and while he was working there, he appears to have suffered an asthamatic bout requiring hospitalization. That is how the writ petitioner seeks to explain the reasons for his absence. It is asserted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the medical facilities provided by the APSRTC for their employees have been availed by the writ petitioner and the Medical Officer has declared the writ petitioner to be under his treatment during his spell of absence from duty. Therefore, the absence of the writ petitioner would well be justified. However, these aspects have not been taken into consideration at all by the Depot Manager. An appeal against the orders passed by the Depot Manager inflicting major punishments would lie to the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, APSRTC at Nalgonda, the 2nd respondent herein. Perhaps, if an appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner against the orders of the 3rd respondent - Depot Manager inflicting the punishment noted supra, the Appellate Authority would have the benefit of having a medical opinion as to whether the services of the writ petitioner can be utilized as a Sramik in the workshop/garage or his medical condition deserves to be relocated elsewhere and whether any such relocation would be feasible in the given circumstances or not and he would also be able to examine as to whether it would be appropriate for him to penalize the petitioner at all and thus modulate this exercise. I, therefore, dispose of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, only on the ground that there is an effective alternative remedy of preferring an appeal, in terms of Regulation 22 of the APSRTC (CCA) Regulations to the 2nd respondent - Appellate Authority. It is needless to mention that the 2nd respondent -Appellate Authority will deal with any such appeal preferred to him and pass appropriate orders thereon on merits within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of the appeal. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 15th July 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}