THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Writ Petition No.11980 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner questions the order of the first respondent, the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor, dated 22.11.1983, removing him from service from the post of Depot Clerk, Madanapalle Depot, as confirmed by the second respondent-appellate authority i.e., the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore, vide order, dated 31.10.1986, and to quash the same as illegal. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that while working as Depot Clerk (Oils) in the Madanapalle Depot, APSRTC, the petitioner was issued charge sheet, dated 09.07.1981, framing nine charges for his involvement in theft of 3000 litres of HSD Oil from oil tanker bearing No.AAC 5175. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report and based on the said report, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation and after considering the explanation, dated 21.07.1981, the order, dated 22.11.1983, was passed removing from service. Questioning the said order, the petitioner also filed an appeal and the second respondent after re-appreciation of entire facts and the contentions, confirmed the order of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, the petitioner earlier raised an industrial dispute in I.A.No.153 of 1987, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in which, a preliminary issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute was raised by the respondent-Corporation stating that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court by its order, dated 13.09.1987, held that the petitioner is not a workman and therefore, as there was no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, it has not gone into the merits of the case and accordingly, dismissed the ID. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6684 of 1991 before this Court contending that the Labour Court has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. But, this Court did not accept the said contention of the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the writ petition by order, dated 05.03.1997, against which, a writ appeal was stated to have been filed and the same was also dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2000 questioning the removal order, dated 22.11.1983 as confirmed by the appellate authority vide order, dated 31.10.1986. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority has followed the principles of natural justice and the enquiry report itself is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of removal equally suffers from patent illegality. It is stated that the petitioner was not on the spot during decantation of the oil tanker and that Sri S.A.Waheb, ADC, was present at the time of decantation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had knowledge or connivance or involved in not decanting the entire tank and retaining 3000 litres of HSD Oil. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was honest and there was no stigma on him, is denied by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that previous conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. He was once involved in a forgery case and as a measure of punishment, he was reverted to the post of Depot Clerk from Traffic Inspector Grade-II and as such there is no truth in the statement that he was honest and he worked to the satisfaction of his superiors. From the material on record, it emerges that the petitioner while working as a Depot Clerk (Oils), at Madanapalle Depot, on 13.05.1981 had not decanted 3000 litres of HSD Oil from oil tanker bearing No.AAC 5175. On the said allegation, a charge sheet, dated 09.07.1981, was issued to the petitioner with the following charges: “i) For having failed to attend the unloading work of HSD Oil decantation brought by the truck No.AAC 5175 on 12/13.05.1981 at about 1.00 hrs., even though you were informed about the arrival of HSD Oil Tanker by Sri S.A.Waheb ADC (Oils) at about 1.00 hrs., while you were talking with Sri S.A.Waheb ADC and Sri S.A.Wahab was found at your residence at about 7.00 hrs., after partial decantation of HSD Oil which reveals that you have masterminded the theft of 3,000 litres of HSD Oil. ii) When Sri S.A.Waheb ADC was asked to handover the 1st set of three folios of IOC invoice No.006324 in connection with the HSD Oil brought by the Truck No.AAC 5175 on 13.05.1981, he has denied to give same to the Depot Manager and he has handed over the same to you which were kept underneath his bunion which he was wearing at that time, with much confidence and intimacy which reveals your connivance with and mutual confidence in each other which lead to the theft of 3000 litres of HSD Oil in connivance with Sri S.A.Wahab ADC and other Security personnel. iii) For having threatened the crew of Oil truck AAC 5175 not to divulge the facts about the theft of 3000 litres HSD Oil threatening that they will be jailed and their truck’s permit will be cancelled as the invoice copies have not signed by Sri S.A.Wahab Oil ADC, which reveals that you have connived with Sri S.A.Wahab ADC in stealing the 3000 litres of HSD oil on 13.05.1981 and attempted to hush-up the matter by suppressing the evidence of the truck crew and relative of the truck owner. iv) For having charged off 38 litres of HSD Oil against Sri V.T.Sahed E.68447, Driver of Madanapalle Depot on 10.04.1981 vide Log Sheet No.1947/8826 even though the said driver has not performed any duties and was availing off on that day which shows your breach of trust. v) For having obtained the signatures of certain drivers of Madanapalle Depot in the empty log sheet bearing Nos.i)1948/1188 ii)1948/1144 and iii) 1948/1159 with a mala fide intention to post the inflated consumption figures afterwards and to adjust the readings of ground tanker, the readings of which are irregular. vi) For your failure to see that the registers of HSD Oil MTD 29 HSD Oil daily dip register are maintained upto date, which shows your ineffectiveness supervision. vii) For your misbehaviour towards Sri T.Subba Rao, the then Asst.Mechanical Foreman of Madanapalle depot in an arrogant manner and used filthy language at the time of serving suspension order to you and denied to give the particulars of your permanent address which shows your insubordination towards your senior supervisors. viii) For having instructed the Oil Bunk cleaners on many occasions to take out oil through the delivery pump in 20 litres empty paint tins and pour the same into the ground tank with an intention to thieve the oil and adjust the balance. ix) For having deliberate failure to inform to the Depot Manager about your nearest relationship with your immediate subordinate Sri S.A.Wahab ADC Oils with an intention to suppress this information and connive with Sri S.A.Wahab and thieve the HSD Oil and other items.” The petitioner submitted his explanation pleading not guilty and the Depot Manager having not satisfied with the same, ordered for departmental enquiry. After conducting departmental enquiry as per the regulations of the Corporation, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Basing on the said report, a show-cause notice, dated 27.10.1983, was issued duly supplying all material and a personal hearing was also provided to the petitioner. On consideration of the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner, removal order was passed, which was confirmed in appeal. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has to supervise while decantation of the oil tanker, but he kept the Assistant Depot Clerk (Oils), Sri S.A.Waheb, to supervise the decantation on 13.05.1981 and therefore, it cannot be said that he was involved in the said theft of 3000 litres of HSD oil, admittedly the petitioner and the said S.A.Waheb were on duty on 13.05.1981 and it is their duty to look after the decantation work. They waited for the oil tanker till 11.00 o’clock and left the depot giving instructions to another ADC to inform them soon after arrival of the oil tanker. After arrival of the oil tanker at about 1.00 hours, the ADC went to the petitioner’s house to inform about the arrival of the oil tanker and at 2.00 o’clock, according to the petitioner, he came to the depot to give instructions to the ADC about decantation of HSD Oil by remaining outside. The fact that he was curiously watching from the outside leads to draw an inference that the ADC decanted 9000 litres of HSD Oil from three compartments, leaving 3000 litres in M3 Compartment in tact. At about 4.00 hours after completion of the decantation of the oil, the oil tanker left the depot premises, with which the petitioner has also accompanied, obviously with a mala fide and fraudulent intention to decant the remaining 3000 litres of HSD Oil in a private bunk to gain wrongfully, which constitutes a serious misconduct. At that stage, a surprise check was made by the Depot Manager and noticed that 3000 litres from M3 Compartment was not decanted in the depot. When the Depot Manager instructed the ADC to handover the invoices, the petitioner disappeared from the Depot keeping the invoices underneath his banian. While the ADC was handing over the hidden invoices to the petitioner at this residence at about 7.00 hours, the Depot Manager caught hold of him and seized the said invoices from the petitioner. On verification of the invoices, it was found that the invoices were not signed by the ADC and one set of invoices was handed over to the truck driver without certification, which goes to show the mala fide intention of the petitioner to misappropriate 3000 litres of HSD Oil. The crew of the tanker was also questioned, who answered that the petitioner threatened them with dire consequences and instructed them not to reveal about the theft of the oil stating that they will be booked for criminal offences, if they did not cooperate. In view of the fact that the petitioner was in-charge to decant the oil and he was on duty on 13.05.1981, it cannot be said that he is innocent and he is not personally involved as the charges are serious in nature and are proved. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Corporation has not followed the principles of natural justice is without any justification. In the circumstances, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ (V.ESWARAIAH, J) Dt.09.12.2010 VGB