IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21588 of 2008 Between: M.D.Bade Miya, s/o. Mansur Ali, aged 53 years, occ:Driver under dismissal, E-301912, APSRTC, Huzurabad, Karimnaar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 2 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar. 4 The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Azamabad, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings No.P2/1(88)/2007-HZB dt. 23.08.2008 as arbitrary and illegal and it amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same by extending all V.R.S. monetary beneﬁts to the petitioner herein. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P. LAKSHMANA RAO. Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. P. RAJINI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings, dated 23.08.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the respondents to extend all monetary beneﬁts under Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the petitioner. It appears, while the petitioner was working as a Driver in the respondent Corporation, he was issued with a charge memo dated 07.12.2007, which reads as under: “For having maintained very irregular attendance during the period from January, 2007 to November, 2007 and availed 31 days leave 87 days sick and 8 days absent for duty, as a result cancellation of KMs, registered besides causing lot of inconvenience to the travelling public and loss of revenues to the Corporation which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner made a representation dated 07.07.2008 to the respondents to permit him to retire voluntarily and extend all monetary beneﬁts under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme formulated by the Corporation. The respondents, without considering the same, have conducted a detailed enquiry and issued the impugned proceedings removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner states that as he is suﬀering from several ailments, he applied for sick leave and thereafter, absented from duties only for about eight days. His grievance is that for this simple misconduct, the respondents removed him from service by the impugned proceedings, which is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents, without considering the representation dated 07.07.2008 of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and without aﬀording any opportunity to him, have issued the impugned proceedings, and therefore, he prays to set aside the same. Smt P. Rajani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, strenuously contended that due to his absenteeism, lot of inconvenience was caused to the travelling public and the Corporation has suﬀered loss of revenue. She further contended that there was no option to the respondent Corporation except to conduct an enquiry and remove the petitioner from service and thus, there is no need for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that, even according to the charge as mentioned above, the petitioner availed 31 days leave, 87 days sick leave and absented from duty only for 8 days i.e., he overstayed the leave for 8 days. Admittedly, the petitioner is suﬀering from various ailments, such as, diabetes, blood pressure and loss of eye vision and that the respondents themselves have sanctioned 31 days regular leave, 87 days sick leave. Under those circumstances, simply because the petitioner overstayed the leave for about 8 days, issuance of the impugned proceedings of his removal is not only illegal and arbitrary, but also disproportionate to the misconduct as alleged against him. The respondents have not stated anything as to the past conduct of the petitioner, as such, he is not a habitual absentee. Further, the respondents, instead of considering the representation dated 07.07.2008 ﬁled by the petitioner, issued the impugned proceedings mechanically. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents could have permitted the petitioner to retire him on medical grounds by extending the monetary beneﬁts under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as per his entitlement. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the date of removal from service i.e., 23.08.2008 as the date of voluntary retirement and extend all monetary beneﬁts as are applicable under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 22.10.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.The Depot Manager, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 2.The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar. 3.The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar. 4.The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Azamabad, Hyderabad. 5.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}