Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 195 (AP)

Y. Venkateswara Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-30

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
ORDER : (K. MANMADHA RAO, J.) The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Proceedings in No PA/67516/2019ED/VJA dated 04.04.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent by Rejecting the petitioners Mercy Petition filed against the Proceedings in Lr No E1/119/2014RPL dt 10.03.2015 issued by the 6th respondent thereby terminating the petitioner from the services of the 2 nd respondent corporation without issuing notice and opportunity of hearing to him in violation of principles of natural justice as illegal irregular arbitrary unjust infringement of his right to livelihood violative of settled principles of service jurisprudence contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees Conduct Regulations 1963 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of driver in the services of the 2nd respondent corporation with attendant benefits and pass ….” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Contract Driver in service of the 2 nd respondent Corporation on 08.10.2010 and posted at the 6 th respondent depot. The petitioner has put up 5 years of service. From the date of joining, the petitioner had attended to his duties and performed to the best of his abilities without any adverse remarks in his service. The 1 st respondent organization is governed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner was assigned with Employee Code No: E.729194 by the 2 nd respondent. The petitioner was governed under the said regulations. On 17.10.2014 after discharge of duties as driver, the petitioner was informed that his father by name Sambaiah was hospitalized due to severe illness on 17.10.2014. Since there were no elders at his home, the petitioner rushed to his village to take care of his father. The treatment of his father took long time but unfortunately, the petitioner's father died on 29.07.2016. Being an elder son, the petitioner had to perform funeral and other traditional customs of his deceased father. In such dire circumstances, the petitioner could not attend to duties from 17.10.2014 for period. The treatment of his father took long time but unfortunately, the petitioner's father died on 29.07.2016. Being an elder son, the petitioner had to perform funeral and other traditional customs of his deceased father. In such dire circumstances, the petitioner could not attend to duties from 17.10.2014 for period. It is further stated that the petitioner absent to his duties was not intentional but it was beyond his control on account of hospitalization and thereafter demise of his father. The then 6 th respondent unilaterally terminated the petitioner from services vide Proceedings Lr.No.E1/1(19)/2014-RPL, dated 10.03.2015 without issuing any prior show cause notice, without calling for his explanation and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by respondents No.2 to 6. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the petitioner was terminated from the service in un-authorized absenteeism for 3 times. It is stated that first time he was terminated on 13.12.2012 and later he was re-instated into service as a fresh contract driver on appeal considered by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Guntur and posted to Mangalagiri Depot. It is further stated that, again the petitioner was absented to his duties and was terminated from service on 23.10.2013 and later was re-instated into service on appeal considered by the Regional Manager, Guntur and posted to Guntur- 1 Depot. It is stated that the petitioner absented to his duties at Repalle Depot and was terminated from service on 10.03.2015. It is stated that the petitioner was given so many opportunities to improve his working habits and attend his duties without absenteeism. It is stated that in spite of many opportunities the petitioner failed in attending his duties with utmost care and respect. It is stated that the petitioner absented to his duties from 17.10.2014 to till date without any intimation or prior sanction of leave from the competent authority. It is stated that due to the Driver's absenteeism difficulty was caused in operating the schedule services punctually. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued on 30.10.2014 and consequently Show Cause Notice of removal was issued on 21.02.2015 and removal proceedings were issued on 10.03.2015. It is stated that due to the Driver's absenteeism difficulty was caused in operating the schedule services punctually. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued on 30.10.2014 and consequently Show Cause Notice of removal was issued on 21.02.2015 and removal proceedings were issued on 10.03.2015. It is stated that the said proceedings were sent though RPAD to the petitioner's house address, but the petitioner rejected the same. In view of absenteeism of the petitioner and the petitioner evaded to take notice, the authorities conducted ex-party enquiry and removed the petitioner from service. It is stated that the Corporation have called objections/comments on enquiry report and followed the disciplinary procedure. Further, the respondent Corporation had given so many opportunities to the petitioner. hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition as there are no grounds. 4. Heard Sri B. Siva Sankar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Transport and Sri S.Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, the 6 th respondent unilaterally terminated the petitioner from service without issuing any prior notice, without issuing show cause notice and without calling any explanation, issued the impugned proceedings are highly unjust, illegal and arbitrary. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal petition and Review Petition before the 5 th and 4 th respondents but the same were rejected. He submits that, finally the petitioner preferred Mercy Petition before the 3 rd respondent praying to set aside the removal proceedings issued by the 6 th respondent. but the same was also rejected vide proceedings In No.PA/675(16)/2019-ED/VJA, dated 04.04.2019 on the ground that they did not find any reason to interfere with the earlier orders. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned proceedings issued by the 6 th respondent and consequential proceedings in appeal, review and mercy petitions issued by the respondents No.5 th , 4 th and 3 rd respondents and imposing such penalty of termination of services of the petitioner in the 2 nd respondent corporation, is highly unjust and arbitrary. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Driver in the 2 nd respondent Corporation by setting aside the impugned proceedings. 6. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Driver in the 2 nd respondent Corporation by setting aside the impugned proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed for allowing the writ petition, and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that, in view to the absenteeism of the petitioner and the petitioner evaded to take notice, the respondents’ authorities have conducted ex party enquiry and removed the petitioner from service. he further submits that the Corporation have called objections/comments on enquiry report and followed the disciplinary procedure. He submits that the respondent Corporation had given so many opportunities to the petitioner. therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the respondents and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the material on record. 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver and he was terminated from the service in un-authorized absenteeism for 3 times. As stated by learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner was termination first time on 13.12.2012 and later he was reinstated into service as a fresh contract driver on appeal considered by the DCTM, Guntur and posted to Mangalagiri Depot. Again the petitioner was terminated from service on 23.10.2013 and reinstated into service on appeal considered by the Regional Manager, Guntur and posted to Guntur-I Depot. But it is the contention of the petitioner counsel that, without issuing any show cause notice and without calling any explanation and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents authorities have issued impugned proceedings. 10. As seen from the impugned proceedings dated 10.03.2015, wherein the respondent authorities mentioned that, “…In this connection, show cause notice as issued to Sri Y.V. Rao, E.729194 contract driver of Repalle depot vide reference 7 th cited and sent the same by RPAD to his house address. But the same was returned by postal authorities with an endorsement that the party is not available in this house.” 11. But the same was returned by postal authorities with an endorsement that the party is not available in this house.” 11. On a perusal of the Appeal Petition preferred by the petitioner dated 28.3.2017 before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Guntur, wherein the petitioner represented that “I had not received any charge sheet or letter to attend enquiry. I have also not received any show cause notice or final termination order. After some days, I had approached to depot authorities to permit me to attend to duty. I was told that I was terminated from service. in the meantime, my father was expired and I could not attend to depot or to submit appeal as there were some domestic problems for settlement. Hence there was delay in preferring the appeal” 12. On perusing the above, this Court observed that, as stated by the respondents’ counsel that the petitioner has evaded to take notice and hence they conducted ex parte enquiry and passed orders, but to substantiate their evidence, the respondents have not filed any proof on record. It clearly establishes that the respondents without giving any notice or opportunity have issued the impugned proceedings. 13. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 14. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, the 3 rd respondent without considering the reasons and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has issued the impugned proceedings in No. PA/675(16)/2019-ED/VJA, dated 04.04.2019 issued by the 3 rd respondent by rejecting the petitioner’s Mercy Petition filed against the proceedings in Lr.No.E1/1(19)/2014-RPL, dated 10.03.2015 issued by the 6 th respondent thereby terminating the petitioner from services of 2 nd respondent corporation without issuing any notice. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition while setting aside the impugned orders and also inclined to remand back the matter to the 3 rd respondent for proper appreciation. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings in No. PA/675(16)/2019-ED/VJA, dated 04.04.2019 issued by the 3 rd respondent by rejecting the petitioner’s Mercy Petition filed against the proceedings in Lr.No.E1/1(19)/2014-RPL, dated 10.03.2015 issued by the 6 th respondent. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 3 rd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by reexamining the issue after affording ample opportunity of hearing of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy o this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.