THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21623 OF 2005 Dt: 05.10.2005 Between: D.Ganapathi Rao .. Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Regional Manager, Srikakulam Region, Srikakulam and others .. Respondent ORDER: The petitioner challenges the notification, dated 21.09.2005, issued by the Depot Manager, Tekkali, removing him from service. The petitioner is employed as conductor in the said Depot. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet dated 25.07.2005, alleging that he remained absent from 16.06.2005 to 19.07.2005, without prior permission or sanction of leave. The petitioner contends that he has fallen seriously ill during that period, and in fact, has produced the medical certificate from the approved panel medical officer. The 3rd respondent issued show cause notice, dated 13.09.2005, narrating that the petitioner did not respond to the charge sheet; an enquiry officer was appointed; the petitioner did not participate in the departmental enquiry despite several notices, and ultimately the enquiry officer has submitted a report, dated 22.08.2005, holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charge. It was pointed out that a provisional conclusion has been arrived at to impose the penalty of removal from service and the petitioner was directed to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of notice as to why the said punishment shall not be imposed against him. The petitioner contends that on receiving the show cause notice, dated 13.09.2005, he submitted his explanation on 16.09.2005, but the 3rd respondent has not taken the same into account. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without taking the explanation submitted by the petitioner into account. He contends that though there is a remedy of appeal, this Court can interfere with the impugned order since it is passed on the short ground, referred to above. Learned standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that even a perusal of the show cause notice discloses that ever since the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner did not participate in the same, in any manner, and that the 3rd respondent has left with no alternative except to pass the impugned order. She contends that the petitioner can avail the remedy of appeal and the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner was removed from service as a measure of penalty. A perusal of the show cause notice, dated 13.09.2005, discloses that ever since the commencement of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner did not participate in the same in any form. The show cause notice refers to all the relevant facts that led to the stage of issuance of the same. The petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation on 16.09.2005. Learned standing counsel submits that there is nothing on record to establish that the explanation has been submitted to the 3rd respondent. Even assuming that either the petitioner has not submitted explanation or that it did not reach the 3rd respondent before he passed the impugned order, law requires him to refer to the show cause notice, the explanation, if submitted, or to the factum of non-submission of application, before the punishment is imposed. The actual consideration of the entire matter in the disciplinary proceedings would be at the stage of imposing of penalty. The facts that weighed with the disciplinary authority in imposing the penalty must be evident from the order of punishment. In the instant case, the order of removal reads as under: ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRNASPORT CORPORTION NO.M1/1 (08)/2005-tkl O/O the Depot Manager Tekkali, dt:21.09.2005 NOTIFICATION Sub: ABSENTEEISM: Unauthorised absence of Sri D.Ganapathi Rao, E.113725, Dy.Sudpt (Mech) of Tekkali depot from 16.06.2005 to till date – Issue of removal from service of the Corporation – Notification issued- Reg. Ref: Removal proceedings No.M1/1(08)/2005, dt.21.09.2005 … In terms of the removal proceedings under reference cited, Sri D.Ganapathi Rao, E.113725, Dy.Sudpt (Mech) of Tekkali depot has been removed from service of the Corporation w.e.f. 21.09.2005. This is for information of all concerned. DEPOT MANGER, APSRTC : TEKKALI It is rather curious, that the only reference that is made in the impugned order, is to the proceedings themselves. Neither there is a reference to the show cause notice nor the explanation, much less to the report submitted by the enquiry officer etc. Even where an employee remained ex parte through out, a duty is passed upon the disciplinary authority to indicate the circumstances that weighed with him to impose the penalty. The impugned order discloses not only a case of non-application of mind but also violation of principles of natural justice. On this short ground, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, duly taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 16.09.2005. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Date:05.10.2005 TS