HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5509 of 2005 Date: June 30, 2010 Between: Y. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Venkat Krishna, Aged 46 years, Occ: Driver, E.No.301618, R/o.7-4-780, Goshal Road, Bodhan, Nizamabad District … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad, and two others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of removal from service vide proc.No.03/1(14)/2K-BDN, dated 11-05-2000, and also the consequential proceedings of 2n d & 1st respondent No.Steno/19(123)/01, dated 07-03-2002, and Peshi/675(17)/03-RM. NZB, dated 04-09-2003 in respect reducing the pay by (2) incremental stages, besides treating the removal period as no on duty, as illegal, unjust, in violation of Art.14, 16 &21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the reduced increments along with all other consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.” The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondents-APSRTC in the year 1987. While he was working in Bodhan Depot, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the following charge is framed against him: “For having absented to your duties unauthorized from 12.12.99 to 24.03.00 without any intimation and without prior sanction of leave which resulted in dislocation of services, loss of revenue to the organization and inconveniences caused to the traveling public which comes under misconduct in terms of Reg.28 Sub clause (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” In the disciplinary proceedings, a notice was sent to the petitioner at the address available in service records, which was returned with an endorsement ‘not available in station’. In view of the same, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted report by recording a finding that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved. Based on such finding, the third respondent, Depot Manager, Bodhan, issued show-cause notice, having come to a provisional conclusion for imposition of punishment of removal, and called for explanation of the petitioner. The said notice was also sent to the residential address of the petitioner, but the same was also returned with an endorsement ‘party out of station’. In that view of the matter, by displaying the notice in the office board, as provided in the Regulations, the third respondent, by order dated 11-05-2000, removed the petitioner from service, by treating the period of his absence as not on duty. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, Divisional Manager, Nizamabad, who, by order dated 07-03-2002, agreed with the findings recorded in the enquiry proceedings, but modified the punishment, taking into account the length of service rendered by the petitioner, to give him an opportunity to change himself. The Divisional Manager/appellate authority has modified the punishment of removal from service to that of reduction in pay by three incremental stages. It was further ordered that the period during which the petitioner was absent shall not be treated as not on duty. Against the order of appellate authority dated 07-03-2002, the petitioner, further, preferred a revision before the Regional Manager, Nizamabad, who, by order dated 04-09-2003, though, agreed with the findings of the disciplinary authority, however, modified the punishment from reduction by three incremental stages to that of two incremental stages, while confirming the finding that the petitioner was not on duty. Assailing the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. It is contended by Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was not given any opportunity in the enquiry proceedings; as such the impugned orders are not only in violation of the Regulations, but also in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the petitioner was on sick leave from 09-10-1999 and as he did not get well, he obtained further permission and remained absent; hence the same cannot be treated as unauthorized absence. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekarand others[1]. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that as the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 12- 12-1999 to 24-03-2000 and the same was proved in the disciplinary proceedings, he was removed from service by the disciplinary authority. It is further submitted that though the appellate and reviewing authorities accepted the findings in the enquiry proceedings, but, granted substantial relief to the petitioner by modifying the punishment of removal to that of reduction of pay by two incremental stages and thus there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. It is further submitted that Regulation 35(A) of APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, framed under Section 45(1) of Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, provides manner of service of communication of notices or orders on employees. It is stated that as the notice sent to the petitioner to the address available in records was not served and returned with endorsement ‘not available in station’, notice was served in the manner prescribed under Regulation 35(A) (4) of the Regulations referred above; as such, it is submitted that enquiry is conducted by issuing notice as contemplated in the Regulations and therefore there is no illegality in the enquiry proceedings. In any event, it is submitted that in view of the substantial relief already granted by the appellate and reviewing authorities, the petitioner is entitled to no further relief. In this case, it is to be noted that even according to the petitioner, he has not applied leave for the period from 12-12-1999 to 24-03-2000. At first instance, it appears, he applied leave due to sickness and even after expiry of the said leave, he did not report to duties. It is his case that he did not recover from illness and therefore he could not report to duties. In such circumstances, he ought to have applied further leave, but he failed to do so and abstained to duties. Hence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for unauthorized absence and show-cause notice was issued to him. There was no possibility to serve the notice in person as contemplated under Regulation 35(A)(1) of the Regulations referred above since he was not attending duties. The only option available to the respondents was to serve notice as per the procedure contemplated under Regulation 35(A)(4) of the Regulations, by displaying the notice on the office board. As such, the notice was displayed on the office board and the said notice can be said to be a proper notice, as much as the same is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Regulations. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that enquiry proceedings were contrary to the Regulations and is in violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be accepted. Further, it is to be noted that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent to duties from 12-12-1999 and the same was proved in the enquiry proceedings, punishment of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority was modified by the appellate and reviewing authorities, while confirming the findings. Substantial relief is already granted by the appellate and reviewing authorities, by modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of reduction of pay by two incremental stages. In that view of the matter, it cannot also be said that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges framed against him. Though learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court referred above, it was a case wherein the Supreme Court held that the procedure followed therein was not correct since charge sheet was not served and no effort was also made to publish the same in the newspaper. But, in this case, it is to be seen that disciplinary proceedings are governed by statutory Regulations, which provide for manner of service. Though notice was sent to the petitioner, it was returned with an endorsement ‘not available in station’. When the notice was returned, respondents displayed the notice on the office board, as stipulated under Regulation 35(A)(4) of the Regulations. Hence, the aforesaid judgment, relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, would not render any assistance to the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders to grant the relief prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 30, 2010 MRR [1] AIR 1998 SC 2722