Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 475 (AP)

M. Radha Krishna v. State of A. P.

2022-04-30

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Arjun, learned counsel, representing Sri N. Srihari, learned standing counsel for APSRTC. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of Removal from service besides treating the absent period as not on duty on the allegation of not reporting for duty at the transferred place without serving Transfer order, vide proc. No. E2/813 (2)/2018-RM-KNL, Dt. 27-08-2020, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, vide Proc. No. ST/19(13)/2020-DY.CME-KNL, Dt.19-12-2020, forthwith as capricious, unconstitutional, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner with all consequential benefits and wages of the petitioner w. e. f. 17-03-2020 forthwith and pass such order or orders...” 3. Sri S. M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Shramik in the year 2011 and was promoted as Mechanic. While working as Mechanic in 5th respondent/Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool-2 Depot, Kurnool District, A.P., he was orally directed to go and report to Atmakur depot on repatriation without serving the copy of the order of repatriation/transfer and in spite of the petitioner’s repeated request, any such order was not furnished. The petitioner suffered ill-health, fever and jaundice, and filed medical certificate of the Government Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon Specialist, Community Health Centre, Atmakur, Kunrnool District (Ex.P1), which was received in the Office of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool on 18.03.2020. Taking into consideration the petitioner’s sick information, vide letter dated 10.03.2020 with copy of the medical certificate, the Personal Officer/3rd respondent, vide reference No.E2/813(2)/2018-RMKNL, dated 18.03.2020 (Ex.P3) advised the petitioner to report at Atmakur depot, so as to direct the petitioner to go to APSRTC Dispensary, Kurnool/Nandyal for better treatment, and if necessary, direct the petitioner to go to APSRTC Central Hospital, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada, failing which, it was provided, that necessary disciplinary action will be initiated. 4. He further submitted that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet, vide reference proceedings No.E2/813(2)/2018-RM-KNL, dated 17.03.2020 (Ex.P4) for having failed to report at Atmakur (K) depot till 17.03.2020, as constituted misconduct, under Regulation No.28 (xxvii) & (xxxi) and 31 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. He further submitted that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet, vide reference proceedings No.E2/813(2)/2018-RM-KNL, dated 17.03.2020 (Ex.P4) for having failed to report at Atmakur (K) depot till 17.03.2020, as constituted misconduct, under Regulation No.28 (xxvii) & (xxxi) and 31 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The charge sheet was issued by the Personal Officer/3rd respondent. In the enquiry, the petitioner stated that he was not informed about the transfer to Atmakur depot and he was not in a position to perform duties at Atmakur depot due to start of Corona pandemic. He also suffered ill-health and submitted sick certificate from Community Health Centre, Atmakur. The petitioner was, however, removed from service, vide proceedings No. E2/813(2)/2018-RM-KNL, dated 27.08.2020 by the Personal Officer, Kurnool APSRTC/3rd respondent. The petitioner’s departmental appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, vide proceedings No. Sk/19(13)/2020-Dy-CME-KNL, dated 19.12.2020 (Ex.P6) of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Kurnool/4th respondent. The petitioner, in his service period of more than 9 years, had no damage cases, no complaint case4s and no cases of absenteeism from duty, no assaulted cases and he is maintaining clean record. 5. Sri S. M. Subhan, has challenged the impugned order mainly on the grounds; (i) that any order of repatriation/transfer was not served in spite of the petitioner’s request; (ii) the petitioner’s application for sick leave was required to be considered as per Rule 11 of the APSRTC Leave Rules, and Circular No.PD-03/1999, dated 08.01.1999 (Ex.P9), according to which, if for any reason the certificate submitted by the petitioner was doubted by the competent authority, he should have acted as per sub-rule (3) of Rule-11, but, the APSRTC Leave Rules, were not followed, resulting into violation of the rules; and (iii) the punishment of removal from service is too harsh and disproportionate to the charge, consequently, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engg. College, (2009) 7 SCC 301 and N. Balakrishna v. Security Officer, APSRTC, 2003 (3) ALT 96 . 6. Sri K. Arjun, for learned standing counsel for APSRTC, submitted that as per the transfer order received from the Personal Officer, Kurnool, the petitioner was relieved to Atmakur (K) depot on 25.02.2020 duly closing his muster up to 25.02.2020, but the petitioner did not report. 6. Sri K. Arjun, for learned standing counsel for APSRTC, submitted that as per the transfer order received from the Personal Officer, Kurnool, the petitioner was relieved to Atmakur (K) depot on 25.02.2020 duly closing his muster up to 25.02.2020, but the petitioner did not report. The Depot Manager at Atmakur (K) depot submitted report to Regional Office, vide letter No.P1/255(1)/2020-ATK, dated 03.03.2020 of non-reporting of the petitioner and as per the Circular No.PD-19-2012, dated 06.07.2012 the petitioner’s case was referred to Regional Office, Kurnool, vide Office Letter No.P2/813(2)/202-KNL-2, dated 07.03.2021. The petitioner submitted a representation along with sick certificate to the Depot Manager/Kurnool-2, through registered post with acknowledgment due on 18.03.2020 which were handed over to PO/KNL, on 20.03.2020, through office letter No.P2/813(2)/2020-KNL-2, dated 19.03.2020. He submitted that the order of removal from service was passed duly complying with the principles of natural justice and the petitioner submitted sick certificate intentionally to cover up his absence and also failed to utilize the medical facility available at Kurnool Dispensary at District Level and Main Hospital at Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada pursuant to the letter No.E2/813(2)/2018-RM-KNL, O/o the Regional Manage, Kurnool, dated 18.03.2020 (Ex.P3). The appeal has been rejected as there was no valid ground to interfere with the order of removal. Penalty imposed on removal from service is not disproportionate. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of L & T Komatsu Ltd. V. N.. Udaya Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 224 . 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. With respect to the first point, that the petitioner was not served the copy of the repatriation/transfer order, in spite of his request, the averment is specifically made in para-2 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, which have not specifically been denied in the counter affidavit. The learned standing counsel could not point out if the order of repatriation/transfer was served, and if yes, on what date? Any receiving of the order of transfer/repatriation by the petitioner or copy thereof has not been filed with the counter affidavit. 9. The learned standing counsel could not point out if the order of repatriation/transfer was served, and if yes, on what date? Any receiving of the order of transfer/repatriation by the petitioner or copy thereof has not been filed with the counter affidavit. 9. Further, the order impugned dated 27.08.2020 specially recorded at its internal page No.3, unnumbered paragraph that “further, the Mechanic stated that, he was not informed about the transfer to Atmakur depot and he is not in a position to perform duties at Atmakur (K) depot in this Corona pandemic and requested to permit him to work at Kurnool-2 depot only”, which shows that even during inquiry the petitioner took the same stand as in this writ petition, however, neither in the impugned order nor in the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the copy of the transfer order was served on the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner’s contention that the order of transfer/repatriation was not served is found correct on the basis of the material on record. 11. With respect to the second point that the petitioner submitted sick leave with medical certificate of Civil Surgeon Specialist, Community Health Centre, Atmakur, Kurnool Depot (Ex.P1), it is admitted to the respondents, that the same was submitted and was received in the Office of the Regional Manager, 3rd respondent, on 18.03.2020 (Ex.P3). The said medical certificate was sent to Atmakur depot by 3rd respondent with advice to the petitioner to report there, failing which, to face necessary disciplinary action, but the same 3rd respondent, issued a charge sheet (Ex.P4) dated 17.03.2020, acknowledged by the petitioner on 19.03.2020, as is stated in the impugned order dated 27.08.2020 itself. This shows that the respondent No.3 even did not wait for the petitioner to report at Atmakur depot pursuant to the proceedings vide letter, dated 18.03.2020 (Ex.P3), and the charge sheet was served on the very next day i.e., on 19.03.2020. 12. Neither in the impugned order of removal from service nor in the appellate order, the medical certificate from Civil Surgeon Specialist, Community Health Centre, Atmakur has been disputed. The only stand taken by the respondents is that the said certificate was filed to cover up non-reporting for duty at Atmakur depot. The genuineness of the medical certificate has not been disputed or doubted at all. 13. The only stand taken by the respondents is that the said certificate was filed to cover up non-reporting for duty at Atmakur depot. The genuineness of the medical certificate has not been disputed or doubted at all. 13. The grant of leave on medical ground in APSRTC is dealt with by the APSRTC Leave Rules. 14. Rule 11 (1) & (3) of the APSRTC Leave Rules provide as under: “(1) An employee who being unable to attend to his duties by reason of illness, applies for leave or an extension of leave shall produce or cause to be produced without delay a sick certificate issued by the competent Medical Officer or in special circumstances by the applicant's own Medial Officer.” “(3) The authority competent to grant leave may in its discretion, but subject to the provisions of any general or special orders of the Corporation, either accept the certificate from the medical attendant or refer the case to the competent Medical Officer for advice or investigation and on receipt of his advice or report, deal with it as circumstances may require…” 15. The Circular No.PD-03/1999, dated 08.01.1999 (Ex.P9) upon which reliance is placed by the petitioner’s counsel also provided that whenever the leave sanctioning authority doubts the genuineness of the certificate, he should write a specific letter to the Superintendent, Tarnaka Hospital for getting the workman examined and report whether he actually suffered with the disease mentioned in the certificate or not. The said Circular is being reproduced as under: “ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATOIN O/o. The Managing Director, No. P1/468(3)/98-PO-IV Mushirabad: Hyderabad 20. CIRCULAR No. PD-03/1999, DATED 08.01.1999 Sub: MEDICAL ATTENDANCE: Accepting the sick certificates issued by the designated RTC Doctor/Government Doctors – Implementation of award in I.D.No.1/1996 – Instructions – Issued Ref: Circular No. PD-130/1994, Dt. 17.11.1994 ******* Instructions were issued through Circular cited, on grant of sick leave to the employee in all genuine cases. The APSRTC National Mazdoor Union raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No. 1/96, that the management shall accept the sick certificates issued by the RTC Doctors or Govt. Doctors and the leave wages may be granted as per the above circular. 17.11.1994 ******* Instructions were issued through Circular cited, on grant of sick leave to the employee in all genuine cases. The APSRTC National Mazdoor Union raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No. 1/96, that the management shall accept the sick certificates issued by the RTC Doctors or Govt. Doctors and the leave wages may be granted as per the above circular. On this dispute the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal – I, Hyderabad vide item No.28 in I.D.No. 1/1996, is reproduced hereunder: “The leave sanctioning authorities should scrupulously follow the leave rules and circulars and accept the sick certificates issued by the designated RTC Doctor or Govt. Doctors in mofusil area. Whenever leave sanctioning authority doubts the genuineness of the certificate, he should write a specific letter to the Superintendent, Tarnaka Hospital for getting the work man examined and report whether he actually suffered with the disease mentioned in the certificate or not.” All Officers are therefore, advised to implement the above orders or Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad” Sd/- V.Appa Rao, Vice-Chairman & Managing Director.” 16. The aforesaid Rule 11 of the APSRTC Leave Rules was considered by this Court in the case of N. Balakrishna (supra) and it was held as under in paragraphs 10 and 11: “10. Prima facie, a reading of sub-rule (1) makes it clear that the employee who, being unable to attend his duties by reason of illness, submits an application for grant of leave or extension of leave, shall produce sick certificate issued by a competent Medical Officer or in special circumstances by the applicant's own Medical Attendant, without delay. Two types of medical certificates are contemplated under this Rule i.e., medical certificate issued by the competent Medical Officer and that of applicant's own medical attendant. Accordingly, the petitioner who was unable to attend to duties by reason of his ill-health and was undergoing treatment under a private Doctor and thereafter shifted to Government Hospital, Narayanpet. Thus under special circumstances, the applicant submitted sickness certificate issued by his Medical Attendant. Therefore, the respondents should have accepted the certificate submitted by the petitioner under Rule 11(1) of the Regulations, to which he is entitled to. Thus under special circumstances, the applicant submitted sickness certificate issued by his Medical Attendant. Therefore, the respondents should have accepted the certificate submitted by the petitioner under Rule 11(1) of the Regulations, to which he is entitled to. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, the authority competent to grant leave is given discretionary power, subject to any general or special orders of the Corporations, either to accept the certificate issued by the Medical Attendant or if he entertains a doubt, refer the case for investigation by the competent Medical Officer for his advice and report and on receipt of such report, deal with the case as the circumstances may require. Therefore, this contingency arises when the authority competent to grant the leave doubts the genuineness of the medical certificate submitted by the applicant. In normal course, the authority competent to grant leave is given a discretionary power to admit sick certificate issued by the Medical Attendant. In the event he doubts its genuineness, a duty is cast on the authority competent to grant leave, to refer the employee to the competent Medical Officer of its own hospital or to the Government Hospital, for investigation, advice and report, as to whether the employee is suffering with any illness. 11. As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner throughout was pursuing the authorities to grant sick leave on the ground that he is unable to attend his duties due to illness. Therefore, the competent authority should have granted the leave on the basis of the medical certificate issued by the Medical Attendant of the petitioner. If for any reason, the certificate issued by the Medical Attendant was doubted by the competent authority, he should have referred the case to the competent Medical Officer for investigation, advice and report. But the case of the petitioner was not referred and simply rejected the medical leave. When the competent authority, has doubted the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner, a duty is cast on him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 to refer the case for advice and report. Therefore, for noncompliance of the provisions of Rule 11(3), the impugned action of the respondent is in violation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Leave Regulations. Therefore, for noncompliance of the provisions of Rule 11(3), the impugned action of the respondent is in violation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Leave Regulations. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that if the respondents have entertained a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the medical certificate, they should have as well referred the petitioner for investigation, advice and report, in compliance of Rule 11(3) of the Corporation Leave Rules. Therefore, for non-compliance of the same, the entire action taken by the respondents is in violation of the said Rule. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.” 17. This Court in N. Balakrishna (supra) thus held that the employee who being unable to attend to his duties by reason of illness, applies for leave or application for grant of leave or extension of leave, shall produce sick certificate issued by a competent medical officer or in special circumstances by the applicant’s own medical attendant without delay. Two types of medical certificates are contemplated under Rule 11 (1). One, the medical certificate issued by the competent medical officer, and two, the medical certificate of applicant’s own medical attendant. The authority competent to grant leave has discretionary power either to accept the certificate issued by the Medical Attendant, or if he entertains a doubt, refer the case for investigation by the competent medical officer for his advice and report. Then on receipt of such report the authority competent to grant leave, shall deal with the case as the circumstance may require. 18. Rule 11 (1) & (3) of the Leave Rules, therefore, provide that in the event, the competent authority doubts the genuineness of the certificate issued by the applicant’s own medical officer, for the procedure to be followed by the competent authority is to refer the employee to the competent medical officer of its own hospital or to the Government hospital, for investigation, advice and report, and thereafter, deal with the sick application. Even assuming that the respondents had their doubt about the medical certificate, the authority competent to grant leave, ought to have followed the rule 11(3) and should have referred the case to the competent medical officer for investigation, advice and report. Even assuming that the respondents had their doubt about the medical certificate, the authority competent to grant leave, ought to have followed the rule 11(3) and should have referred the case to the competent medical officer for investigation, advice and report. The petitioner’s case was not so referred, and simply by saying that the medical certificate was filed to cover the non-reporting to duty at Atmakur, treating the petitioner’s absence as unauthorised from duty, the impugned order of removal from service has been passed. 19. The letter dated 18.03.2020 (Ex.P3), upon which the learned counsel for the respondents emphasised, only advised the petitioner to report at Atmakur Depot, so as to direct him to APSRTC dispensary, Kurnool/Nandyal for better treatment and to direct the petitioner to APSRTC Central Hospital, if necessary. This letter was only for providing better treatment to the petitioner and not in terms of Rule 11 (3) as the Medical Certificate submitted by the petitioner was never doubted vide the said letter dated 18.03.2020 nor the petitioner’s case was referred for advice or investigation to the competent Medical Officer. The Court finds that leave rule 11 of the rules was not followed. 20. the next point is the proportionality of punishment imposed, i.e., as to whether the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate or not. 21. In Jagdish Singh (supra), on the point of proportionality of punishment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Courts and the Tribunals can interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority only when they are satisfied that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged and proved against the delinquent employees and not otherwise. 22. Paragraph-6 of Jagdish Singh (supra) reads as under: “6. The courts and the tribunals can interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority only when they are satisfied that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged and proved against a delinquent employee and not otherwise. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC [ (2005) 7 SCC 338 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 69] wherein it is stated: (SCC p. 348, paras 11-12) “11. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC [ (2005) 7 SCC 338 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 69] wherein it is stated: (SCC p. 348, paras 11-12) “11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 12. To put it differently unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.” 23. In Jagdish Singh (supra), the appellant therein had a good track record from the date he joined service as a Sweeper. In his long career of service, he remained absent for 15 days on four occasions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, that was not a case of habitual absenteeism. The absence was primarily to sort out the problem of his daughter with her in-laws. The filial bondage and the emotional attachment might have come in his way to apply and obtain leave from the employer. The alleged misconduct would definitely amount to violation of discipline that was expected of an employee to maintain in the establishment, but might not fit into the category of gross violation of discipline. 24. It is apt to refer paragraphs – 8, 9 and 10 of the Jagdish Singh (supra) as under: “8. The instant case is not a case of habitual absenteeism. 24. It is apt to refer paragraphs – 8, 9 and 10 of the Jagdish Singh (supra) as under: “8. The instant case is not a case of habitual absenteeism. The appellant seems to have a good track record from the date he joined service as a sweeper. In his long career of service, he remained absent for fifteen days on four occasions in the months of February and March 2004. This was primarily to sort out the problem of his daughter with her inlaws. The filial bondage and the emotional attachment might have come in his way to apply and obtain leave from the employer. The misconduct that is alleged, in our view, would definitely amount to violation of discipline that is expected of an employee to maintain in the establishment, but may not fit into the category of gross violation of discipline. We hasten to add, if it were to be habitual absenteeism, we would not have ventured to entertain this appeal. 9. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 30-9-2004 and affirmed by the High Court vide its order dated 28-8-2007. 10. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having due regard to the unblemished record of the appellant, and the reasons for which he remained absent without obtaining permission, the ends of justice would be met, if punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is modified to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and further declare that he would not be entitled for any monetary benefits during the period he was out of service and that period would be counted only for the purpose of his service benefits. We direct the disciplinary authority to issue appropriate orders in this regard within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this Court's order by either of the parties.” 25. In the present case, this Court finds that except for absence for the charged period, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever absented and any disciplinary case, damage case, and assault case were against the petitioner or that he did not maintain his clean record. Anything contrary to the petitioner’s case on the above point has not been brought on record. 26. Anything contrary to the petitioner’s case on the above point has not been brought on record. 26. In the case of L & T Komatsu Ltd. (supra), upon which learned standing counsel for APSRTC has placed reliance, there was proved misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism for 15 times, and the workman had not improved his conduct. Consequently, such habitual absenteeism was gross violation of discipline, and under the circumstances, the punishment of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority was found not disproportionate. The case is distinguishable on the above ground. 27. The punishment of removal from service for the said absence of the petitioner in the presence of the medical certificate and at a period when the pandemic of Covid-19 had just entered, would be shockingly disproportionate to the charge, even if the charge is taken to have been proved. 28. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the period in question of the petitioner’s absence cannot be treated as an unauthorised absence from duty, as there was violation of the Rule 11 (1), (3) of the leave rules. The absence in question, in the absence of rejection of the petitioner’s sick leave application, as per the leave rules, cannot be said to be unauthorized. 29. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders impugned, dated 27.08.2020 and 19.12.2020, are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits, by the competent authority on presentation of the copy of this order before the competent authority. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.