Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.
K.B. Chowdary, E-62983, Supdt. (T) - Petitioner
Versus
APSRTC rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 29404 of 2012
Decided On : 29-9-2015
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation –Writ petition was allowed by this Court but before the order was signed, a mention was made by learned standing counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation that his earlier concession that no enquiry was held against the petitioner was factually incorrect case was therefore directed to be listed under the caption For Being Mentioned to examine this aspect of the matter. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned standing counsel for the APSRTC. Perused the original record produced by the learned standing counsel petitioner was a Superintendent in the service of the APSRTC at Depot. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in and was visited with the punishment of reversion to the post of Deputy Superintendent under the final order passed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC,. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present writ petition. Court granted interim suspension of the impugned final order noting that the punishment imposed there under was a major punishment but the order did not disclose any enquiry having been conducted, which was in violation of the APSRTCs own regulations –Held, A departmental enquiry conducted for the purpose of disciplinary action against a public servant is not an empty formality. It is a serious proceeding intended to give the delinquent a chance to meet the charges and prove his innocence right of the delinquent officer to cross-examine witnesses who give evidence against him is a valuable right and in order to effectively exercise this right, it is necessary that the examination-in-chief of the witnesses should be recorded in the presence of the party against whom the deposition is made. On the above analysis of the facts and legal position, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the enquiry held against the petitioner was a mere mockery. It is relevant to note that the petitioner initially entered the service of the APSRTC as a conductor and was thereafter promoted to the post of Superintendent principles of natural justice and the APSRTCs own regulations therefore required that he should be given every opportunity to defend himself. There is no indication of the petitioner being apprised of the protection afforded to him by the regulations and being asked as to whether he wished to examine any witnesses on his own behalf. That apart, as stated supra, the Enquiry Officer only examined the petitioner and that too by posing only two questions of relevance – Writ petition is therefore allowed.
P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.
This writ petition was allowed by this Court on 27.02.2015 but before the order was signed, a mention was made by Sri S.V. Ramana, learned standing counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), that his earlier concession that no enquiry was held against the petitioner was factually incorrect. The case was therefore directed to be listed under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' to examine this aspect of the matter.
2. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.V. Ramana, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC. Perused the original record produced by the learned standing counsel.
3. The petitioner was a Superintendent (Traffic) in the service of the APSRTC at its Simhachalam Depot. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in February, 2012, and was visited with the punishment of reversion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Traffic), under the final order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Simhachalam. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present writ petition.
4. By order dated 24.09.2012, this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned final order dated 29.08.2012, noting that the punishment imposed thereunder was a major punishment but the order did not disclose any enquiry having been conducted, which was in violation of the APSRTC's own regulations.
5. However, in the counter filed on behalf of the APSRTC by its Law Officer, it was stated that the charges against the petitioner were got enquired into by the Depot Manager, Maddilapalem, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. It was in this context that the learned standing counsel was asked to produce the original record.
6. The impugned final order dated 29.08.2012 refers to the office charge sheet-cum-show cause notice No.P3/535 (1)/12 dated 09.02.12, the office charge sheet-cum-show cause notice No.P3/535 (3)/12 dated 10.02.12 and the office charge sheet of even number dated 10.02.12 having been issued to the petitioner. However, perusal of the original record reflects that the petitioner only submitted explanation dated 25.03.2012 to the charge sheet No.P3/535 (8)/12 dated 02.03.12. This charge sheet is not even mentioned in the impugned final order. The statement of the petitioner appears to have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Maddilapalem, on 14.06.2012, in connection with charge sheet No.P3/535 (8)/12 only. The translation of the questions and answers put to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer was made part of the record and reads as under:
"1. Are you ready to give statement?
A: Yes I am ready.
2. On observation of operations up to Feb.2012 and cancellation of kilometers of Simhachalam depot it is noticed that 95.78 services operation and 4.21 percentage of services (pertaining to evening services) were cancelled. You have been ordered several times to see that no service and kilometers are cancelled. You have failed to adhere said instructions. Due to non appropriate planning services were cancelled and financial loss caused to the corporation. For this your lack of supervision is the reason. Give your answer?
A. Due to Every day in the Chart 25 Conductors and Drivers (leaves, sick, absenteeism, ODs (norms short) shortage is coming. 10-15 crew have been convinced for double duties. More than that it was not possible. Due to the shortage of ADCs, usage of conductor services in place of ADCs, shortage of conductors, the non cooperation of union people for double duties. In spite of my persistent efforts there are some blanks hence, services have been cancelled, but not due to my fault.
3. Due to non adherence of higher officials instructions, decisions, lack of plan of operation of schedules in SML depot, mainly the shortage of crew in the second shift not only causing cancellation of bus services and kilometers and causing financial loss to the corporation. For this yours lack of supervision is not the reason? Answer this?
A. I have
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
