1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to Award dated 27.12.2003 in I.D.No.02 of 2001 passed by respondent No.1 and set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary and also to direct the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages, continuity of service and all consequential/attendant benefits and for consequential relief.
2. Heard petitioner/party-in-person and Sri N.Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent No.2-Corporation on 31.10.1983; that while one C.Deva Sharma, who is Chief Inspector of Sanathnagar division, was conducting enquiry on 31.05.1999, in the case of Syed Jehangir, Conductor of Jeedimetla Bus depot, the petitioner has interfered with the enquiry, abused the said C.Deva Sharma in the presence of G.Narsaiah, who was steno of Divisional Manager and B.M.Raju, who is TTI and tried to assault him by catching hold of his collar; that a charge sheet was issued on 09.06.1999 with following charge and he was kept under suspension on the same day:-
Charge:-
“For having intruded into the room of CE (E)/SNG at 17:30 hrs on 31.05.1999 and abused the CE(E)/SNG in filthy language. Further tried to assault and threatened the CI(E)/SNG with dire consequences which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.26(xi) of 1963 APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.”
4. It is further averred that the Chief Inspector (E) of Charminar division was appointed as enquiry officer and the enquiry officer after conducting enquiry submitted his report on 29.04.2000, holding that charge levelled against the petitioner was proved and consequently, the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 16.06.2000, imposed the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was rejected vide Order dated 30.10.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute vide I.D.No.2 of 2001 and the Tribunal vide Award dated 27.12.2003, dismissed the Industrial Dispute, however, directed the respondent No.2-Corporation to treat the order of removal of petitioner from service as compulsory retirement and extend him all benefits, for which, he is entitled under the relevant rules. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.
5. The petitioner submitted that he was the General Secretary of the APSRTC Workers Education Association and he used to attend enquiries for assisting the employees, whenever the corporation allows him to participate in the enquiry as contemplated under Section 35 of APSRTC C.C & A Regulations, 1967; that on 01.06.1999, the respondent No.2-Corporation served a letter on him to attend the enquiry scheduled to be conducted on 02.06.1999, at Kukatpally Bus Depot; that he submitted a representation dated 02.06.1999, requesting to furnish a copy of compliant and also requested to summon the complainant for cross-examination, but the Chief Inspector of Kukatpally, without considering the same issued charge sheet dated 09.06.1999, by placing him under suspension; that he submitted a representation dated 10.06.1999 and 23.06.1999, requesting the respondent No.2 to furnish relevant documents connected to alleged charges, but the respondent No.2 without considering the same, Ordered for detailed enquiry by nominating the Chief Inspector of Enquiries, Charminar Division.
6. The petitioner further submitted that the Enquiry Officer had issued a letter dated 03.03.2000, informing him to attend the enquiry scheduled to be held on 11.03.2000; that he submitted a representation dated 09.03.2000, requesting the enquiry officer to permit him to cross-examine the complainant as well as the said Syed Jehangir, but the enquiry officer did not consider the same and issued final show cause notice dated 29.03.2000, informing him to attend the enquiry scheduled to be held on 10.04.2000, but the same was served on the petitioner on 10.04.2000 at 15:30 hours and the enquiry was conducted as ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to him.
7. The petitioner further submitted that respondent No.2 has reduced him subsistence allowance without issuing notice or opportunity and periodically reduced the suspension allowances till the date of removal and finally removed him from service on 16.06.2000 with mala fide intention; that he preferred an appeal on 08.08.2000, before the Divisional Manager of Sanathnagar Division and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 30.10.2000. Aggrieved by the same, he filed review petition on 10.04.2001, before the Regional Manager, Hyderabad, and the same was rejected, but it was not informed to him and finally, prayed to allow the writ petition.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that all the documents pertaining to charge levelled against the petitioner were supplied to the petitioner and in spite of giving ample opportunity, petitioner failed to give explanation to the charge sheet. He further submitted that in order to provide further opportunity to the petitioner, respondent No.2 appointed Chief Inspector (E) of Charminar division to conduct enquiry; that the enquiry officer issued notices to the petitioner on four different dates and conducted enquiry on 22.10.1999, in the presence of petitioner by following due procedure, but the petitioner declined to cross-examine the witness on that date; that the enquiry officer again issued notices to the petitioner on five different occasions to give his statement, but the petitioner without attending enquiry, submitted two representations, thus, the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on 29.04.2000, holding that charges were proved.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that the respondent No.2 has issued a letter dated 03.05.2000, enclosing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, calling for his explanation; that the petitioner acknowledged the said letter and submitted a representation dated 12.05.2000, requesting the respondent No.2 to furnish statements of personnel; that respondent No.2 gave reply dated 17.05.2000, advising the petitioner to attend the office and verify the documents; that the respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice dated 31.05.2000 and the petitioner without submitting his explanation, submitted a representation dated 09.06.2000, for subsistence allowance, therefore, the respondent No.2-Corporation has finally issued proceedings dated 16.06.2000, imposing punishment of removal from service. He finally submitted that writ petition is devoid of any merit and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
10. The principle contention raised by the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority has conducted the enquiry without following due procedure and imposed punishment of removal from service in a high-handed manner without affording ample opportunity to the petitioner. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner attended the preliminary enquiry, but did not disclose anything with regard to the incident, however, he insisted the preliminary enquiry officer to furnish a copy of complaint and also for production of complainant. In fact, the petitioner had already received a copy of complaint and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner, as per the preliminary notice dated 01.06.1999.
11. Perusal of record discloses that petitioner was charged with misconduct that he accompanied by Syed Jahangir, entered into the office of the Chief Inspector on 31.05.1999 at 5:30 PM, without permission and requested to take up the enquiry of Syed Jahangir on the next date, for which, the Chief Inspector replied that already ex-parte enquiry was conducted; that the petitioner tried to assault the Chief Inspector by catching hold of the collar and abused him in filthy language in the presence of one G.Narsaiah and B.M.Raju; that a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 01.06.1999 and the said G.Narsaiah and B.M.Raju were examined as witnesses.
12. It is evident from the record that though charge sheet was issued and several notices dated 15.06.1999, 25.06.1999 and 09.07.1999 were addressed by the respondent No.2-Corporation along with relevant documents, petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the charge sheet; that the enquiry officer was appointed and issued notices dated 10.12.1999, 18.01.2000 and 03.03.2000 calling for the petitioner to attend the enquiry, but the petitioner submitted representation dated 09.03.2000 regarding subsistence allowance and some other; that the enquiry officer again issued notices dated 29.03.2000 and 03.04.2000 calling for the petitioner to attend the enquiry, but the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 06.04.2000 to the Regional Manager with regard to subsistence allowance. Thus, the enquiry officer conducted ex-parte enquiry and submitted his report dated 29.04.2000, holding that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved.
13. Basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has issued a letter dated 03.05.2000, calling for explanation and that the petitioner submitted representation dated 12.05.2000, informing the respondent No.2 that unless documents were supplied to him, he could not submit explanation; that respondent No.2 vide letter dated 07.05.2000, advised the petitioner to attend the office at any time and peruse the records. Though, the petitioner received the letter, he again submitted a representation dated 25.05.2000, with a request to suspend or revoke the order of suspension and drop the charges of charge sheet; that the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 31.05.2000 for removal of petitioner from service and the respondent again submitted a representation dated 09.06.2000, requesting for subsistence allowance and failed to give any explanation to the show cause notice and as such, the disciplinary authority issued proceedings on 16.06.2000, removing the petitioner from service.
14. The respondent No.2-Corporation has issued several notices to the petitioner to attend the enquiry and also issued several letters on different occasions calling for explanation from the petitioner and also provided all the documents pertaining to the complaint against the petitioner, but the petitioner except submitting representations, neither attended/co-operated with the enquiry nor submitted explanation to the show cause notice, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that ample opportunity was not provided to him is untenable.
15. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner had no occasion to cross-examine the complainant. In fact, on 22.10.1999, the petitioner and the complainant attended the enquiry and the statement of the complainant was recorded. At that time, the enquiry officer asked the petitioner, whether he is willing to cross-examine the complainant, but the petitioner replied that he would cross-examine the complainant only if the respondent No.-2 Corporation would take appropriate action on his representation dated 15.10.1999 and declined to cross-examine the complainant, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, has no legs to stand. It is pertinent to note that the other contention raised by the petitioner that his subsistence allowance was reduced without issuing any notice is not the subject matter of the present writ petition, therefore, there is no necessity to delve into the said aspect.
16. Admittedly, despite granting ample opportunities to petitioner to submit his explanation to the preliminary enquiry, show-cause notice, petitioner failed to respondent to the same and further, despite granting ample opportunities to participate in the enquiry and cross-examine the witnesses, petitioner deliberately evaded from enquiry on one or other pretext and tried to scuffle the enquiry proceedings on untenable grounds. The petitioner neither offered any explanation to the charges levelled against him nor cross-examined the witnesses, therefore, the charges and evidence remained uncontroverted.
17. The Tribunal has observed that petitioner did not deny the presence of any witnesses at the time of incidence and did not defend himself before the enquiry officer and refused to give statement nor produced any witnesses on his behalf and has finally come to conclusion that petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement into service or any other benefits. Despite the said conclusions, the Tribunal has taken lenient view and directed the petitioner to treat the Order of removal of petitioner from service as compulsory retirement and to extend him all benefits, for which he is entitled under relevant rules. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the Award passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court.
18. In the light of above discussion, the writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed being devoid of any merit. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
