IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7526 of 2000 Between: T. Shankar Rao, D.No. 10.39.3, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam - 530002. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 2 Depot, Manager, APSRTC, Gajuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam. .....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 grant a Writ or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.D. 95/97 before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam quash the same declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the rules and against the law and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstating as driver with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.K.CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner, who was working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and is attached to Gajuwaka Depot in Visakhapatnam, has filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of the award, dated 21st of October 1999, passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.95 of 1997. 2. The petitioner was in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, working as a Driver in Gajuwaka Depot. On the ground that he had unauthorisedly absented to his duties from 17.02.1992 to 22.07.1992, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and an inquiry was conducted. When the charge sheet was issued to him, there was no response from the petitioner, and also the notices sent to him in the domestic inquiry proceedings were returned unserved, as he was not available at the address, which was on record. As such, an exparte inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer, who has submitted his report by recording a finding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. Based on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, by following the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, the disciplinary authority has passed orders, dated 5th February 1993, removing the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner has moved the appellate authority, he was unsuccessful. Subsequently, he raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, has dismissed the claim of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner/workman was not entitled to any relief. 3. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that as the petitioner was sick and due to some family worries, he could not attend to his duties. It is submitted that in any event, the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioner. 4. The Law officer of the Corporation has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents. While generally denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is a habitual absentee, and his leave card shows that he was absent from duties on several occasions. It is also stated that the petitioner was once removed from service on 14.10.1991, on account of absenteeism, and even after reinstatement, he has not changed his attitude and he was in the habit of unauthorized absence from his duties. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal shows that the petitioner did not dispute the validity of the domestic inquiry. In this case, the charge is to the effect that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent to his duties from 17.02.1992 to 22.07.1992. Though initially he has produced a sick certificate for the period from 17.02.1992 to 19.02.2002, and a further certificate to show his sickness up to 16.03.1992, there is no reason at all to explain his unauthorized absence for further period. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that he was not given an opportunity in the domestic inquiry proceedings, but the respondents have sent notices to the petitioner at the address available on record. If there is any change in the address, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to notify the same to the employer. In the absence of any such intimation of change of address, the respondents have conducted the inquiry in correct lines by sending notices to the address, which was available on record. In any event, it is also to be noted that before the Tribunal, the petitioner has not disputed the domestic inquiry proceedings, and on his behalf, a memo was also filed to that effect. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the inquiry proceedings, which resulted in passing of removal order, dated 5th February 1993. 5. Further, though it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge, but from the averments of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner was a habitual absentee, and earlier also, he was removed from service on similar such charges on 14.10.1991. It appears that even after his reinstatement, he has not changed his attitude. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioner. Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioner was removed from service in the year 1993, and it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation that he is about 56 years of age, and as such, he is nearly reaching the age of superannuation. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, and also by the Tribunal. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th March 2009. ajr