Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash award, dated 03-02-2001, in ID No.54 of 1998, on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. The petitioner is a driver of the respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) and was working at Nizamabad Depot at the relevant point of time. He stopped attending to duty from 09-11-1995. By Office Order, dated 07-11-1995, the petitioner was transferred from Nizamabad Depot to Bheemgal Depot. The Depot Manager of Nizamabad Depot addressed letter, dated 09-11-1995, to the Depot Manager, Bheemgal Depot, informing that the petitioner was relieved on the afternoon of 09-11-1995 and that his muster was marked upto 07-11-1995. The petitioner’s personal records were also sent to the Bheemgal Depot. A chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on 07-03-1996 with the following charges: “1.For having failed to attend the APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, for review as advised vide Lr.No.P1/813(3)/95-BMGL, dt.22-2-1996, which was sent to residential address was returned undelivered stating that ‘Addressee left’ and also failed to submit intermediate sick certificate, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. 2. For having failed to attend for duties at Bheemgal depot subsequent upon transfer from Nizamabad depot from 9-11-1995 to till date unauthorisedly without the sanction of competent authority, as a result of which, services are dislocated and caused much inconvenience to the travelling public, besides loss of revenues to the Corporation, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28(viii) and (xxxii) of APSRTC, Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” It is not in dispute that the chargesheet and the other correspondence were sent to the residential address of the petitioner but they were returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the endorsement “addressee absent for 7 days”. It is the stand of the Corporation that the chargesheet was displayed in the notice board of Bheemgal Depot for 7 days; that the petitioner did not submit any explanation and that he failed to participate in the enquiry also, despite notice, dated 14-04-1996, issued by the enquiry officer, sent to his residential address which was also returned with the same endorsement as noted above. Therefore, having been left with no option, the enquiry officer had conducted an ex parte enquiry. Thereafter, the respondent issued to the petitioner show cause notice, dated 28-05-1996, proposing the punishment of removal from service. Therefore, having been left with no option, the enquiry officer had conducted an ex parte enquiry. Thereafter, the respondent issued to the petitioner show cause notice, dated 28-05-1996, proposing the punishment of removal from service. Even this notice was returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the endorsement that the addressee was not available in the village. A copy of the said notice was displayed in the notice board. The petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the said show cause notice. The respondent has passed Order, dated 15-06-1996, removing the petitioner from service. Even this order sent through post to the petitioner’s residential address was also returned undelivered. It is only on 16-10-1997 that the petitioner has approached the respondent with a request for a copy of the order of his removal from service. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nizamabad, which was rejected on merits. The review petition filed by the petitioner before the Regional Manager, Nizamabad, was also rejected. The petitioner, thereupon, moved the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), in the year 1998, questioning the order of his removal from service. The Labour Court, by its award, dated 03-02-2011, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer except to the extent of finding that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 09-11-1995 and held that since the petitioner has reported sick up to 16-11-1995, he was unauthorisedly absent from that date and not from the anterior date. While finding that the petitioner overstayed the sick leave granted to him, the Labour Court has held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of his misconduct and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages and attendant benefits apart from denying annual increments of 5 years with cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved by imposition of this penalty by the Labour Court, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. Feeling aggrieved by imposition of this penalty by the Labour Court, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Mr.V.Narsimha Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was not intimated about his transfer from Nizamabad Depot to Bheemgal Depot and that even letter, dated 22-02-1996, addressed by the Depot Manager, Bheemgal Depot, to the petitioner to report to the Superintendent, APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, was neither served on him nor placed in the notice boards of either of the two depots viz., Nizamabad or Bheemgal. The learned Counsel further submitted that since the transfer order was not served on the petitioner or placed in the notice board of the Nizamabad Depot, charge No.2 that he has failed to attend the duties at Bheemgal Depot, consequent on his transfer, from 10-11-1995 cannot stand and that therefore, the further charge that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent is equally unsustainable for the same reason. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the penalty substituted by the Labour Court is too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges even if they are held proved. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and others ((1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 569) and the unreported judgments, dated 08-04-2011 and 02-03-2012, passed by two learned single Judges of this Court in WP.Nos.21382 of 2010 and 14055 of 2002 respectively. The learned Counsel also submitted that since the enquiry officer has not served any of the enquiry notices and chargesheet on the petitioner, the whole disciplinary proceedings have got vitiated. Mr.H.Venugopal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, submitted that the petitioner, having filed a memo before the Labour Court to the effect that he is not disputing the procedural aspect of the disciplinary enquiry and that he is only disputing the findings of the disciplinary authority, cannot turn around and question the validity of the domestic enquiry. The learned Counsel further submitted that as the petitioner was, admittedly, absent unauthorisedly, he was removed from service and that the Labour Court, having taken a lenient view has substituted the said punishment with a lesser penalty and therefore, he cannot have any grievance on this aspect. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel with reference to the record. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel with reference to the record. Charge No.1 is in two parts. While the first part relates to the petitioner’s failure to attend the APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, for review as per letter, dated 22-02-1996, the second part relates to his failure to submit intermediate sick certificates. The gravamen of Charge No.2 is that the petitioner failed to attend duties at Bheemgal Depot, subsequent to his transfer from Nizamabad Depot, from 09-11-1995 till the date of framing charges as a result of which the services were dislocated, causing much inconvenience to the travelling public besides loss of revenue to the Corporation. With respect to the first part of Charge No.1, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the first place, the transfer Order, dated 07-11-1995, was not served on the petitioner even though the same was stated to have been sent to his village address. He further submitted that letter, dated 22-02-1996, addressed by the Depot Manager, Bheemgal, to the petitioner to report to the Superintendent, APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, within three days, also remained unserved; that as per the prescribed procedure, where the postal letters are not served, the same shall be displayed in the notice board of the Depot and that as this procedure was not followed, the petitioner cannot be accused of not subjecting himself to medical tests. With regard to the second part of Charge-I, the learned Counsel submitted that his client has submitted intermediate sick Certificates at Nizamabad depot, but however, he did not obtain acknowledgments in respect thereof. As regards Charge No.2, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the transfer order itself was not served on the petitioner, he was not aware of his transfer to Bheemgal Depot and therefore, he cannot be blamed for not reporting to duty at Bheemgal depot. As regards the first submission of the learned Counsel relating to non-service of letter, dated 22-02-1996, he has not disputed that the said letter was sent to the petitioner’s village address as given by him and it was returned unserved as addressee not available for seven days. The petitioner, however, takes shelter under the Corporation’s regulations that wherever the postal communications are not served, they should be displayed on the notice board. The petitioner, however, takes shelter under the Corporation’s regulations that wherever the postal communications are not served, they should be displayed on the notice board. The respondent is unable to plead and prove whether letter, dated 22-02-1996, was placed in the notice board or not. But, the undeniable fact, which stares at the petitioner, is, having claimed that he was under treatment in Tarnaka Hospital until 16-11-1995, he failed to report to duty thereafter even in Nizamabad depot. Assuming that both transfer order, dated 07-11-1995, and letter, dated 22-02-1996, under which the petitioner was asked to attend the APSRTC hospital for medical examination, were not deemed to have been served in accordance with law, nothing prevented the petitioner from reporting to duty at Nizamabad Depot in which he was working till he allegedly fell sick on 09-11-1995. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he sought to report at the Nizamabad Depot, but he was not permitted as such. Undisputedly, the petitioner, who reported to duty last on 09-11-1995, was at large till 16-10-1997, i.e, almost two years when he has re-appeared and requested for supply of a copy of the order of his removal from service. In the meantime, enquiry proceedings were initiated and an order of his removal from service was passed on 15-06-1996. Even after the removal order was passed, for a period of sixteen months, the petitioner did not make any attempt to report for duty either at Nizamabad Depot or at Bheemgal Depot. It is also not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was completely bedridden not being in a position to move about and know about his transfer to Bheemgal Depot. These facts would convince me to hold that the petitioner, in the most irresponsible manner, was away from duty and sought to search for excuses on technicalities such as non-following of procedure by the Corporation in serving transfer orders as well as letter, dated 22-02-1996, on him. In my opinion, even if the first part of charge No.1 regarding service of letter, dated 22-02-1996, is held not proved, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner failed to submit intermediate sick certificates as envisaged under Regulation 11 (6) of the APSRTC Employees (Leave) Regulations. Even though he has raised a plea that he has submitted sick Certificates, admittedly, he did not adduce proof in support thereof. Even though he has raised a plea that he has submitted sick Certificates, admittedly, he did not adduce proof in support thereof. Therefore, the second part of Charge No.1 stands proved and consequently, the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the Labour Court to the extent of proving of second part of first charge are proper and correct. With regard to charge No.2, here again, the petitioner sought to rely upon the technicalities. He seeks to take asylum under the fact that the Corporation did not file proof of service of transfer order on him but the fact remains that the petitioner failed to establish that he has atleast reported to duty at Nizamabad Depot if not at Bheemgal Depot. Therefore, the findings of the Labour Court on charge No.2 are not liable for interference. Coming to the judgments cited, on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the judgment in Union of India (1st supra) deals with the requirement of service of notices in the departmental proceedings. In the said case, when the chargesheet sent to the respondent was returned with postal endorsement “not found”, it was held that the same cannot be legally treated to have been served and that the employer should have made further efforts to serve the same on the delinquent. This judgment has no relevance in the present context for the reason that the petitioner has filed a memo before the Labour Court wherein he has not disputed the legality of the procedure followed by the enquiry officer. As regard the judgments in WP.No.21382 of 2010 and 14055 of 2002, they have turned on their own facts and no ratio of general application has been laid down therein. Hence, these judgments are not of any help to the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is the driver of a Public Utility Corporation, he is expected to discharge his duties with devotion and commitment. There is, absolutely, no explanation from the petitioner for his reckless and irresponsible manner in which he stayed away from duty from 16-11-1995 till 16-10-1997 (even though the chargesheet was issued on 07-03-1996, the fact remains that the petitioner has resurfaced for the first time after 09-11-1995 only on 16-10-1997). In ordinary course, the petitioner’s removal from service itself is an appropriate punishment as was done by the departmental authorities. In ordinary course, the petitioner’s removal from service itself is an appropriate punishment as was done by the departmental authorities. However, the Labour Court has invoked its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act by substituting the punishment of removal from service with a lesser penalty. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the penalty atleast to the extent of withholding of 5 increments with cumulative effect needs to be set aside. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Labour Court is justified in imposing the substituted penalties. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.