Point of law: punishment imposed on the petitioner by way of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the charge of closing the SR prematurely and this requires to be interfered with by way of modification of the punishment imposed on the petitioner, and accordingly, this Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner therein into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages.

ORDER :

1. W.P. No. 29602 of 2014 was filed for the following relief:

“to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 11.09.2014 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the service of the Corporation in the interest of justice.”

2. W.P. No. 40763 of 2015 was filed for the following relief:

“to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the appeal vide proceedings No. PA/10(25)/2015-DY-CTM-ELR, dated 20.03.2015 in justifying the ex-parte removal orders dated 19.12.2014 in proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the orders passed in appeal Vide No. PA/10(25)/2015-DY-CTM- ELR, dated 20.03.2015 as well as ex-parte removal order, dated 19.12.2014 in proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. The Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same. W.P. No. 29602 of 2014 was filed challenging the Suspension Proceedings. W.P. No. 40763 of 2015 was filed subsequently challenging the termination proceedings.

4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the year 1997 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (the “Corporation” for brevity). While petitioner was performing the duty in Bus No. AP-37Z-0110 of Jangareddigudem as Conductor on 07.09.2014 at 12:30 hours on the route Jangareddigudem-Tekuru, a check was conducted at Buttaigudem and the checking inspectors found that petitioner issued ticket wroth of Rs. 10/- only instead of fare ticket worth of Rs. 18/- having collected Rs. 20/- from a lady passenger and failed to refund the due amount of Rs. 2/- to her, who boarded in the said bus at Dondapudi. Basing on the complaint given by the Inspecting officials, the 3rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 11.09.2014 and charge sheeted the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved by the said Suspension Order vide proceedings No. O2/95(174)/2014-JRG dated 11.09.2014, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 29602 of 2014. The Respondents Corporation filed its Counter affidavit resisting the case of the petitioner and the Writ Petition is pending.

6. Meanwhile, the petitioner went to his native place i.e. Palantla village during Sankranthi Vacation, and he was told by the Postman that earlier two registered covers came on his name, but due to the reason that he was not available, they have returned to the sendors address. On enquiries, the petitioner came to know that he had been issued enquiry notice and thereafter removal order vide Proceedings Dated 10.01.2015. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 31.01.2015 to respondent No. 3 brining to his notice that he did not receive any enquiry notice and show cause notice and requested to give him an opportunity to produce documentary evidence to support and consider his case. As there is no action, he filed W.P. No. 13443 of 2015 before this Court questioning the Order of Removal from service. Later on, the said Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 26-11-2015.

7. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No. 3 on 02-02-2015. The Appellate Authority, without considering the case of the petitioner in a proper manner and not considering the specific plea taken by the petitioner so as to why the enquiry notice and the removal order was sent to the native village address of the petitioner instead of the present address available in the office of respondent No. 3 by refusing to give opportunity to hear the version of the petitioner, dismissed the