IMPORTANT POINT
Termination of employment without notice or inquiry violates principles of natural justice and is unsustainable under Regulation 12(3) of the APSRTC Regulations.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned order in Proc.No.P1/1(38)/2016-MDCL, dated 23.05.2017 terminating the services of the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Regulation 12(3) of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Regulations, 1967 (for short, ‘Regulations, 1967’) and consequently set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri G. Rajesh learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned standing counsel for the TSRTC appearing for respondents.

3. The brief facts that lead to filing of the present writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation in the year 2013 on contract basis and has been discharging his duties. While so, he submitted leave application for the period from 25.09.2016 to 28.09.2016 as he was suffering with severe illness along with medical certificate, however, the 3rd respondent has issued charge memo dated 28.09.2016 framing two charges without considering the leave application, to which petitioner submitted explanation stating that he could not attend to the duties due to illness only and there was no willful or deliberate negligence on his part and further assured that he will not absent to the duties in future. Not satisfied with the explanation, the respondent authority had appointed Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, after due inquiry, submitted report dated 07.10.2016 holding that the two charges were proved.

4. That the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and called for his objections and the petitioner submitted his objections to the enquiry report on 21.10.2016. Not satisfied with the objections offered by the petitioner, respondent-authority issued show-cause notice dated 21.10.2016 proposing to terminate his services. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice on 28.10.2016. It appears that on assurance given by the petitioner that he would be regular to his duties and would not give any scope in future, the petitioner was allowed to continue his services.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner submitted leave application for three days i.e., from 20.05.2017 to 22.05.2017 in connection with the marriage of his sister, however, 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 23.05.2017 terminating his services without issuing any notice and without conducting inquiry. It is further contended that neither a notice was issued and nor any enquiry was conducted, which is contrary to Regulation 12(3) of the Regulations, 1967. He further contended that impugned proceedings are issued basing on the enquiry report dated 07.10.2016, which was conducted earlier for the absenting period from 25.09.2016 to 28.09.2016 and however, further action pursuant to the enquiry report was dropped and petitioner was allowed to continue in service. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 23.05.2017 could not have been issued basing on the earlier enquiry report. Learned counsel for Petitioner further contended that at any rate, punishment imposed on petitioner is very harsh and is not commensurate to the charges leveled against the petitioner and prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings and pass appropriate orders.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention:

(i) TSRTC, Hyderabad and others vs. Janaki Ramudu, 2017 (1) ALD 254 (DB);

(ii) M. Murali Krishna vs. APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another, Judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dated 05.04.2005

7. Learned standing counsel for respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the writ petition and contended that without exhausting the remedy of appeal and review as contemplated in the Regulations, 1967, petitioner has directly approached this Court and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable; that re