IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 857 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/10/2008 in WP NO : 26525 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Shankar Rao Choudhary, S/o Dattatreya Choudhary, R/o Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, Represented.by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, 2nd Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Jeedimetla Depot, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 22.10.2008 made in W.P. No.26525 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and setting aside the award dated 20.5.2003 made in I.D. No. 1 of 2001 by the second respondent herein whereby the writ petitioner - workman was reinstated into service without back wages and with continuity of service, he is in appeal, claiming back wages. The first respondent writ petitioner was engaged as a cleaner on daily wages on 13.6.1989 and was promoted as Mechanic Grade – II with effect from 11.8.1994. As the writ petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly without prior sanction of leave from 4.9.1994 to 8.10.1994, he was charge sheeted. The case of the writ petitioner was that he was suffering with typhoid and, as such, he could not attend to duty. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by him, the Enquiry Officer issued show cause notice on 29.10.1994, to which he did not submit any explanation. However, the writ petitioner was taken on duty on 26.10.1994, pending disciplinary action, but he remained absent intermittently from November, 1994 to May, 1995. Again on 24.5.1995, the writ petitioner was addressed a letter that in case he fails to report to duty, action would be taken pending enquiry, which was returned un-served and, therefore, final order of removal was passed by proceedings dated 16.9.1995, which also could not be served on the writ petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 1 of 2001, which was dismissed by an award dated 20.5.2003 holding that he is not entitled to ask for setting aside the removal order dated 16.6.1995 passed by the A.P. State Rod Transport Corporation, but entitled for retirement benefits treating the order of removal as voluntary retirement and also directed that the retirement benefits shall be paid within two months from the date of publication of the Award. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, the writ petitioner filed the above Writ Petition, which was allowed setting aside the order passed by the second respondent in the I.D. with a direction to reinstate him into service without back wages and with continuity of service. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner preferred this Appeal claiming back wages. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The order of removal dated 16.6.1995, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, does not speak of any enquiry conducted against the writ petitioner. Non-compliance of the mandatory procedure for conducting enquiry would render imposition of the punishment of removal from service, being major punishment, unsustainable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is right in upsetting the Award passed by the second respondent. The first respondent, even though taken on duty inspite of repeated and intermittent unauthorized absence, has remained irregular in attending the duty. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar June 30, 2009 MAS