MOHAMMED SARDAR ALI KHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is out of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition no. 15477/84 dated 11th August, 1986, whereina learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed for quashing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, i. e. , the Board of Directors of the A. P. Road Transport Corporation represented by its Chairman as manifested in Resolution No. 124/1984 dated 7-8-1984 communicated to the petitioner in Reference No. A1/27 (22)/84-PD dated 29-8-1984 confirming the proceedings of the first respondent dated 8-11-1983 bearing Ref. No. Ea/138 (4)/82-PD.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case as emerging from a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows: the petitioner entered into the service of the first respondent-Corporation in the year 1965 as Probationary Assistant Mechanical Engineer. For his selection, he had qualified himself in a competitive examination. He holds the - degree of B. E. (Mechanical) and has also acquired the Post-Graduate degree of m. Tech. in Plant Engineering and Management and M. B. A. , after joining the service. He claims that he is fully qualified to hold the responsible post of assistant Mechanical Engineer (Industrial Engineering) when disciplinary proceedings were initiated in April 1982. The petitioner had completed 18 years of service, which according to him, has been of unblemished nature and he had received letters of appreciation and merit service from the higher authorities. He had also received an award of merit from His Excellency the Governor of andhra Pradesh. By proceedings dated 12-4-1982, the petitioner was placed under suspension. A charge memo was communicated to him stating, inter alia, that he had associated himself with the Andhra Pradesh Productivity council for conducting a training programme on "office clerical efficiency" at nirmal for Andhra Pradesh Girijan Co-operative Corporation from 16-12-1981 to 19-12-1981 in consideration of remuneration without sanction of competent authority. It is further stated in the charge memo that he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly on two days, 16th and 17th December 1981 and failed to obtain sanction for regularisation of such unauthorised absence. Further more, it is stated that he left headquarters without permission and drew wages for 16th and 17th December 1981, suppressing the fact of such unauthorised absence. The petitioner is also supposed to have collected a sum of rs. 2,100/- from the Andhra Pradesh Girijan Co-operative Corporation and misappropriated the said amount representing himself as the representative of the Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 21-4-1982 denying all the charges. He also stated that he was placed under suspension without any preliminary enquiry which was initiated with a mala fide intention to damage his career. He denied receipt of any remuneration of Rs. 2,100/- and stated that he had merely designed the course schedule on the request of the Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council and the first respondent Corporation is an institutional member of the Andhra Pradesh productivity Council. By virtue of the said association, he was entitled to render scientific expertise and service at the disposal of the Productivity Council. He also denied the charge of unauthorised absence on the said alleged dates and misappropriation.

( 3 ) THE then Chief Mechanical Engineer (Production), Sri J. Radhakrishna reddy was appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry under regulation 12 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. In support of the charge memo, the Corporation examined some witnesses, who also relied on certain documents, which according to the petitioner, are of impeachable authenticity. He submitted his own documents. Apart from himself, he examined three witnesses. A show cause notice proposing the penalty of dism

Click Here to Read the rest of this document