Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 27157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V Sujatha, J
S RADHA KRISHNA – Appellant
Versus
APSRTC – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 2680/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V Padmanabha Rao
For the Respondents: Aravala Rama Rao
The court held that failure to produce medical evidence during a domestic enquiry and inordinate, unexplained delay in challenging a removal order (doctrine of laches) disentitle an employee from seeking reinstatement through extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Removal from Service - Non-production of medical evidence - Failure to produce medical certificates during the domestic enquiry or in response to a show-cause notice, and presenting them only before the Tribunal, does not entitle the employee to relief as it deprived the employer of the opportunity to verify the claims via a medical board. (Para 8)
(B) Doctrine of Laches - Delay in challenging removal order - Inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the appellate authority and the Industrial Tribunal reflects inactivity and precludes the grant of extraordinary equitable relief under writ jurisdiction. (Para 9, 10)
Issues: Whether the removal from service was arbitrary and whether the inordinate delay in challenging the order should be condoned.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding unauthorized absence, domestic enquiry, and subsequent removal from service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. failure to produce medical evidence during the domestic enquiry process. (Para 8) |
| 3. application of the doctrine of laches due to inordinate delay in challenging the order. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. dismissal of the writ petition based on lack of grounds for interference. (Para 11) |
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, duly calling for the records from the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in respect of I.D. No. 16 of 2015, quash the impugned award dated 03.01.2017 made in I.D. No. 16 of 2015, published on 30.08.2017 for not grating any relief as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the petitioner pray this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstatement the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits including the salary payable from the date of removal from service in the interest of justice and fair play
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:
“…to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, duly calling for the records from the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in respect of I.D. No. 16 of 2015, quash the impugned award dated 03.01.2017 made in I.D. No. 16 of 2015, published on 30.08.2017 for not grating any relief as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the petitioner pray this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstatement the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits including the salary payable from the date of removal from service in the interest of justice…”
2. The petitioner herein joined the services of the respondents’ corporation as conductor on 25.01.1992 and his service was regularized with effect from 01.08.1992. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 30.07.2007, by framing three charges, as he was absent for duties from 17.03.2007 till 30.07.2007 i.e., the date of issuance of charge sheet. In spite of the same, as the petitioner did not attend to duty, a report was submitted on 03.09.2007 for his continuous absence to duties basing on which, another charge sheet dated 04.09.2007 was issued to the petitioner, but in vain. As such, the petitioner was issued a notice on 02.01.2008 with a direction to attend enquiry.
3. As the petitioner did not come forward, the respondent authorities have conducted an exparte enquiry and submitted a report dated 18.01.2008 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved. Basing on the said enquiry report, the 1st respondent, vide proceedings bearing No.E1/1(4)/2007-BPL, dated 15.02.2008 removed the petitioner from services of the respondent corporation. The said removal order was challenged by the petitioner before the Chairman – cum – Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Anantapur vide I.D.No.16 of 2015 wherein, no ocular evidence was adduced by either of the parties, however, the petitioner got marked Exs.W1 to W10 and the respondents got marked Exs.M1 to M10. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments submitted by learned counsel on either sides, framed the following issues for determination:
1. Whether any improper enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer thereby violated principles of natural justice?
2. Whether the findings of the enquiry officer requires any interference?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for?
4. Th
