THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.3829 of 2010 DATE: 19.02.2010 Between: C.H. Illaiah … Petitioner And The APSRTC represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.3829 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings No.E1/1(26)/2008- JN dated 11.02.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent removing him from service, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as conductor in the respondent corporation on 01.03.1989. He was issued with a charge sheet on 28.05.2008 alleging that he was absent from duty from 20.05.2008 to 26.05.2008 unauthorisedly. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent by nominating the Assistant Manager (T), Jangaon, as Enquiry Officer, who in turn, submitted a report dated 21.07.2008 to the 2nd respondent holding the petitioner guilty of the allegation. Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent issued a notice on 16.08.2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service and submit explanation, but the petitioner failed to submit explanation. Assuming that the petitioner has no explanation to offer, the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings No.E1/1(26)/2008-JN dated 11.02.2010 removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. 4. As seen from the charge leveled against the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner was absent from duty unauthorisedly from 20.05.2008 to 26.05.2008. Whereas, while issuing the impugned proceedings, the 2nd respondent has also taken into consideration the subsequent period of absence of the petitioner from duty i.e. from 01.01.2009 to 16.01.2010. In my considered view, the 2nd respondent should not have referred to the subsequent period of absence of the petitioner in the impugned order. If the 2nd respondent wanted to initiate action against the petitioner for his subsequent period of absence also, he should have put the petitioner on notice and held an enquiry. 5. In fact, by Circular No.1/2009-LD dated 18.07.2009, the 1st respondent directed the disciplinary authorities that when no charge is framed against an employee with regard to subsequent absenteeism, such subsequent absenteeism should not be mentioned in the final orders to be issued, pursuant to the proved charges pertaining to earlier absenteeism, and disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded within a reasonable time, after issuance of show cause notice of removal. It is further directed that with regard to subsequent absenteeism, separate proceedings have to be initiated, in accordance with the APSRTC Employees (CC & A) Regulations, 1967, and instructions issued from time to time. Further, this Court, in number of cases, has held that the disciplinary authorities shall restrict themselves to the charge and shall not proceed beyond the said period. 6. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from initiating necessary action for the subsequent period of absence of the petitioner from duty, if they so choose. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 19th February, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by three days. (b/o) CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.3829 of 2010 (Allowed) 19th February, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by three days. (b/o) CBS