THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 21928 OF 1998 Date: 01.02.2008 Between: K.M.A. Khan. … Petitioner. And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur and two others. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 21928 OF 1998 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C. on 23.05.1978. He was issued a charge memo dated 07.10.1995 wherein he is alleged to have been irregular in attending his duties from January to August, 1995 which according to the Depot Manager, Kadiri, the disciplinary authority, had caused severe dislocation in the services of the Corporation. The charge sheet details the fact that the petitioner was accorded leave for twenty one days, that he was sick for thirty one days and that he was absent for three days. The contention of Sri S.A.K. Mynuddin, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that for the period he was shown as sick for thirty one days the petitioner was sanctioned medical leave. This is not disputed by Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In effect, the petitioner is charged for remaining absent from duty for three days during the period from January, 1995 to August, 1995. A departmental enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer, in his report dated 21.03.1996, held that the petitioner was not available for duty for 57 days (23 days leave, 31 days sick and 3 days absent), that he had submitted private sick certificates frequently, that he was abstaining from duties and that, on account of the petitioner’s absence for 57 days, the respondent Corporation had lost revenue. A show cause notice dated 04.04.1996 was issued furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of removal should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his representation thereto on 10.10.1996 wherein he stated that he had put in more than 18 years of service, that he had a huge family and that his job was the only source of livelihood. He assured that he would not give room for any complaint in future. Thereafter the Depot Manager, Kadiri passed order dated 16.12.1996 wherein he observed that the petitioner had remained absent from duty from 13.12.1996 till the date of the order ie., 16.12.1996 without prior sanction of leave which established that he had no interest in serving the Corporation. Sri S.A.K. Mynuddin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the alleged period of absence from 13.12.1996 till the date of order i.e., 16.12.1996 did not form part of the charge memo and as such could not have been a factor for imposition of the punishment of removal from service. It is, indeed, true that the disciplinary authority has taken the period of absence, subsequent to the issuance of the charge memo, into consideration in awarding the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager wherein he alleged that he was not given an opportunity of being heard in the enquiry. The Appellate Authority, in its order dated 22.05.1997, took note of the absence of the petitioner for the years 1988-1992 and his attendance for the period subsequent to the charge memo into consideration in coming to the conclusion that he was regularly absent from duty. However taking a lenient view, the Appellate Authority reinstated the petitioner into service, posted him to Hindupur depot, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of reduction of pay by three incremental stages for a period of three years without cumulative effect besides reducing his seniority by 300 places in the Regional Seniority List of Conductors. The Appellate Authority also directed that the period, from the date of the petitioner’s absence till he reported for duty at the new station, should be treated as not on duty for the purpose of leave, wages and increments. The Appellate Authority expressed his inability to accept the petitioner’s contention that except Kadiri water, no other water was suitable, since no such certificate had been produced from Taranaka Hospital at Hyderabad. The Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to pay Security Deposit afresh and observed that he could obtain a certificate from the Chief of Taranaka Hospital that his condition would not permit him to work at any other Depot in Anantapur Region except Kadiri. The Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to report to the Depot Manager, Hindupur within one week from the date of receipt of the proceedings, failing which his order would stand cancelled. The petitioner was also informed that a review petition against these proceedings could be presented to the Regional Manager, Anantapur within two months. As the Appellate Authority had passed his order on 28.05.1997 the petitioner was entitled to file a review petition on or before 27.07.1997. The petitioner preferred a review petition well within time on 11.07.1997 which fact is not in dispute and is, in fact, reflected in the reference column of the order of the Reviewing Authority dated 08.06.1998. Curiously, without examining the petitioner’s review petition on merits, the Regional Manager, Anantapur, (the reviewing authority), observed that he did not have jurisdiction over the case till the orders of the Appellate Authority were given effect to. The petitioner was informed that he should only approach the Appellate Authority for any grievance in this case, who would dispose of the representation in accordance with the APSRTC Employees Regulations. The petitioner approached the Appellate Authority on 16.06.1998 just a week after the order of the reviewing authority. However, the Appellate Authority rejected his representation on the ground that there was no provision under the Appeal Rules for belated requests of employees for considering late reporting for duty after such a long period of one year and hence he did not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed on 22.05.1997. From the facts, narrated hereinabove, it is evident that, the Appellate Authority had passed the order in appeal dated 28.05.1997 and had, himself, informed the petitioner that he was entitled to file a review petition against the Appellate order to the Regional Manager, Anantapur within two months. The petitioner could have availed the statutory remedy of seeking review of the Appellate Order on or before 27.07.1997 which remedy he availed by filing the review petition on 11.07.197. The reviewing authority, having kept the review petition pending with him for nearly a year, was not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s review petition on the ground that he did not have jurisdiction till the order of the Appellate Authority was given effect to. On a query from the Court, whether there was any statutory provision which disabled the Reviewing Authority from exercising jurisdiction till the delinquent employee complied with the order of the Appellate Authority, Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel would express ignorance of any such statutory provision. In the absence of any statutory rule restricting exercise of jurisdiction by the Reviewing Authority, only on the order of the Appellate Authority being complied with by the delinquent employee, the impugned order dated 08.06.1998 passed by the Regional Manager, Anantapur is liable to be quashed. While the submission of Sri S.A.K. Mynuddin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the period both prior to the charge memo and subsequent to the charge memo i.e., either before January 1995 or after August, 1995 cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of a specific charge memo being issued to the petitioner and that the petitioner cannot be reduced by 300 places in the seniority list of conductors without just and valid reasons, cannot be said to be without merit, I do not propose to examine these questions since, on the order of reviewing authority being quashed, the petitioner can well raise these contentions before the Reviewing Authority. The Reviewing Authority will examine the matter afresh, on the basis of the material on record and the observations made herein above, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He shall also communicate his order to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of three months. Needless to state that, since it is only the order of the Reviewing Authority which has been set aside, the order of the Appellate Authority shall continue to remain in force subject to the orders being passed afresh by the Reviewing Authority. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ________________________ Date: 01.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR