ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

Heard

2. Facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would disclose that Petitioner was selected for the post of bus conductor on daily wages on 25.04.1987. The Vigilance department after due verification submitted a report on 15.04.1987 stating that documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of joining are genuine. Services of the petitioner were regularized from 24.11.1987. A charge sheet dated 01.08.2000 was issued to the petitioner basing on a complaint filed by a press reporter alleging that the SSC certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of joining service is fake. Respondent No.2 being satisfied with the explanation submitted by petitioner, by order dated 30.08.2000 dropped further action against the Petitioner.

2.1 Respondent No 3 issued charge sheet and called upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry by order dated 15.05.2002. Petitioner challenged the above notice in WP No.20217 of 2002. This court granted interim stay. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 22.06.2016 with a direction to the respondents to conduct enquiry and maintain Status Quo while the enquiry is pending. Writ Appeal No. 718 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner against the order of learned single judge was also dismissed by order dated 16.08.2016. Charge sheet dated 30.08.2016 was issued by Respondent No. 3 for which a detailed explanation was given by the petitioner. Present Writ Petition is filed challenging show cause notice dated 18.06.2018 calling upon petitioner to show cause against proposed punishment of removal from service as illegal, unjust and contrary to law.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that disciplinary action was initiated based on anonymous complaint. As per the information obtained by petitioner, there is no person, by name, Sri Ashok Reddy as Eenadu Daily Newspaper Reporter of Bejjanki. By obtaining Government instructions, Managing Director of respondent-corporation also issued circular directing the competent authorities not to entertain anonymous complaints/ petitions. As there is no person, by name, Ashok Reddy, obviously it was a false complaint generated to harass and humiliate the petitioner. According to learned counsel, similar complaint was made earlier. Based on the said complaint, matter was examined, information was obtained from the School Education Department and having found that certificate produced by petitioner was genuine, further action was dropped and, therefore, the present disciplinary action is not maintainable.

3.1. According to learned counsel, at the time of joining service, original certificates of petitioner were submitted to the respondent corporation. Original certificates and antecedents of petitioner were verified and on due satisfaction of eligibility and suitability, petitioner was selected and appointed. Therefore, at this distance of time, it is not open to respondent Corporation to make allegation of submitting false educational certificate at the time of joining into service and to penalizing him on that ground. He would submit that as original certificate was submitted to the respondent Corporation, he does not have any other material to produce before the authority.

3.2. Learned counsel would further submit that since Regional Manager has already taken decision to drop the disciplinary action, Depot Manager being subordinate to the Regional Manager is not competent to initiate disciplinary action on the very same issue and on that ground alone entire disciplinary action is liable to be set aside.

3.3. Oral evidence is crucial to substantiate the allegation of submitting false certificate. According to learned counsel, the complainant was not produced and was not examined. The authority, who has given certificate based on which disciplinary action was initiated is not examined, more particularly the Head Master of the School, where petitioner studied and who claimed to have given certificate that petitioner failed in 1