THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.21382 of 2010 ORDER: Questioning action of the 2nd respondent, Regional Manager, in not extending consequential benefits and back wages for not treating the removal period on duty as well as in imposing the deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined as Conductor on 02.12.1991 in the respondents’ Corporation. While so, the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager, BHEL, vide his proceedings dated 04.07.2006 removed the petitioner from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, who rejected the appeal vide order dated 08.03.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision before the 2nd respondent, Regional Manager, who eventually, vide order dated 29.04.2009 reinstated the petitioner into service duly deferring two annual increments with cumulative effect and treated the period of removal as not on duty. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working under the control of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner along with another Driver, Sri P.Ravinder Reddy, were arrested in a crime and later on released, and eventually the same is ended in acquittal. When the petitioner went to report for duty, he was served with the order of removal from service, without serving any notice and conducted ex parte enquiry. Therefore, the same is illegal and against the principle of natural justice. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was rejected. Thereafter, he filed revision, wherein, by order dated 29.04.2009, the 2nd respondent modified the order of removal of the petitioner to that of reinstatement of the petitioner into service duly deferring two annual increments with cumulative effect and treated the removal period as not on duty. He further submits that as the respondents have not issued any notice and conducted ex parte enquiry, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Further, initial order of removal of the petitioner itself is illegal and contrary to law. In support of his contention he placed reliance in the case of UNINO OF INDIA v. DINANATH SHANTARAM KAREKAR[1]. However, he submits that he filed a Memo to the effect that he is ready to forgo the back wages, provided, the respondents Corporation treating the period of removal as on duty restoring two annual grade increments as deferred by the 2nd respondent in his order dated 29.04.2009. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation submits that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in connection with which, he was arrested and the same was not within the knowledge of the Corporation. Therefore, as he was found to be absent from duties, an enquiry was conducted and though the petitioner was served with the notice, he did not chose to participate and therefore, he was removed from service, which was upheld by the appellate authority but in revision, the order of removal is modified to that of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and treating the intervening period as not on duty for all the purposes. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, Regional Manager, is proper and justified and no interference of this Court is required. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the respondents Corporation who initially was removed from service on the allegation of unauthorized absence and eventually reinstated into service with deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and treating the intervening period as not on duty for all the purposes. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that without serving any charge-sheet/notice on him, and by conducting ex parte enquiry, he was removed from service. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. From a perusal of the order dated 04.07.2006, it reveals that Enquiry Officer was appointed but there is no sufficient proof to show that the charge-sheet/notice has been serviced upon the petitioner. Therefore, this amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of UNION OF INDIA (one supra) wherein, the Apex Court held as under: “The appellant should have made further efforts to service the charge sheet on the respondent. Single effort, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be treated as sufficient. That being so, the very initiation of the departmental proceedings was bad. It was ex- parte even from the stage of charge sheet which, at no stage, was served upon the respondent. So far as the service of show cause notice is concerned, it also cannot be treated to have been served. Service of this notice was sought to be effected on the respondent by publication in a newspaper without making any earlier effort to serve him personally by tendering the show-cause notice either through the office peon or by registered post. There is nothing on record to indicate that the newspaper in which the show-cause notice was published was a popular newspaper which was excepted to be read by the public in general or that it had wide circulation in the area or locality where the respondent lived. The show-cause notice cannot, therefore, in these circumstances, be held to have been served on the respondent. In any case since they very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings was bad for the reason that the charge sheet was no served, all subsequent steps and stages, including the issuance of the show-cause notice would be bad. Where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge-sheet, its actual service is essential as the person to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. So also, when the show-cause notice is issued, the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action proposed to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employee is given an opportunity to submit his reply, the theory of “Communication” cannot be invoked and “Actual Service” must be proved and established. It has already been found that neither the charge-sheet nor the show-cuase notice were ever served upon the original respondent. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar. Consequently, the entire proceedings were vitiated.” From the above, it is obvious that where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated issuance of a charge-sheet/notice, and its actual service is essential, as the person to whom the charge-sheet/notice is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. It is the stand of the learned standing counsel that the notice for enquiry was sent but the petitioner failed to acknowledge the same. In such circumstance, the respondents Corporation has to take further course of action for service of the charge-sheet/notice either by sending the same second time or by publishing the same in newspaper having wide circulation, but in the instance case none of such course was followed and proceeded further by conducing ex parte enquiry. Single effort cannot be treated as sufficient. The facts and circumstances of the case one supra and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are similar to the extent of service of charge-sheet/notice etc. There is no record in the instant case showing that the petitioner was served with charge-sheet/notice etc., but the respondents Corporation has just completed the formalities but not in accordance with law. Therefore, without service of charge-sheet/notice and conducting ex parte enquiry, based on which, the petitioner was removed from service, is bad, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned proceedings are vitiated. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner had already filed a memo to the effect that he is ready to forgo the back wages, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service restoring the two annual grade increments treating the period of removal of the petitioner as on duty but without any back wages. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 08.04.2011 LSK [1] 1998-ALLMR-4-707, 1998-AIR(SC)-0-2722