THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.144 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in removing the petitioner from service through proceedings No.P1/648(1)/2003-Avanigadda, dated 17.12.2004, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the regulations of the respondent Corporation, and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. It appears the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation in the month of August, 1990. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working under the second respondent- Depot Manager, Avanigadda Depot, Krishna District. Pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent Corporation to fill up the Officer under Training vacancies, the petitioner applied for the same and the examination was held on 15.06.2003 at Vijayawada. During the course of examination, he was caught red handed, when he was copying from the General Knowledge book held by him, and he had conceded the said fact. Therefore, he was issued with a charge sheet. Since the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry, the impugned order was passed on 17.12.2004 removing him from service. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that in spite of sending several reminders, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry, and therefore, an ex parte enquiry was conducted and decision was taken to remove him from service. It is also stated that the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. It is further stated that though the petitioner is having effective alternative remedies of appeal and raising an Industrial dispute before the Labour Court, he had not availed the same and straight away approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that though the petitioner requested the second respondent to supply certain documents and he also informed the same to the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent did not supply the documents and enquiry was conducted ex parte. He also contended that there is no misconduct as referred to in the charges and that there is no jurisdiction vested in the respondents to take any action against the petitioner assuming that there is some residual power available with the management, and therefore, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service for such a misconduct is unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation supported the impugned order and submitted that the very writ petition itself is not maintainable and the petitioner has tarnished the image of the Corporation, and therefore, there could not have been a lesser punishment imposed by the management except removing him from service. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. The charges framed against the petitioner are as under: “(1) For having copied from General Knowledge book in the Officer under Training (G) examination held at Andhra Loyola College, Vijayawada on 15.06.2003, which you were attending the examination as Departmental candidate with Hall Ticket No.420233, which constitutes serious misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28(xv)&(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963. (2) For having devasted the image of the Corporation from among the candidates who have attended the Officers under Training (G) Examination on 15-06-03, which constitutes serious misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963.” Initially, the petitioner himself appears to have admitted that he has copied in the examination hall on 15.06.2003 and as soon as he received the charge sheet, he addressed a letter to the second respondent for production of certain documents for the purpose of giving explanation. However, it appears that though the matter was adjourned five times, neither the documents were furnished nor the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer, and therefore, the impugned order was passed. Here it is necessary to notice that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the month of August, 1990. By the time he appeared for the examination of Officer under Training on 15.06.2003, he had put in 13 years long service. Since the petitioner was caught red handed in the examination hall while copying from the General Knowledge book, the management of the Corporation was entitled to proceed with the matter departmentally. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no departmental proceedings have been invoked, such a contention cannot be countenanced. Since the petitioner is a departmental person, when he is appearing for the examination, he is not supposed to involve in any malpractice. But, however, that itself does not mean that the petitioner deserves an ultimate punishment of removal from service. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. In a case of this nature, generally speaking, the matter needs to be remanded to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration, but however, since for more than six years the petitioner has been out of service, and the misconduct being not done during the course of his employment, but while attending to an examination for getting himself qualified for being appointed as an Officer under Training, it cannot be said that there is any connection between the misconduct and the employment. There is some misconduct on the part of the petitioner. If the petitioner had been an outsider, probably, he would have been allowed to sit for examination or debarred from appearing in future examination. Since the petitioner is a departmental person, he was proceeded departmentally and punishment was imposed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner definitely deserves a punishment to be imposed for the misconduct in which he was involved, but removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority, it may further delay the matter. Therefore, in spite of remanding the matter, to meet the ends of justice and to give a quietus to the litigation, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be decided by this Court. Therefore, the impugned order of removal dated 17.12.2004 is modified to that of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages and attendant benefits from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. The respondent Corporation shall reinstate the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above modification, the writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 30.03.2010 va