##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

WRIT PETITION No.23141 of 2007

DATED: 28^TH JANUARY, 2026

Between

A.Jaffar

…Petitioner

AND

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Adilabad, Adilabad District

and another

…Respondents

ORDER:

Petitioner has questioned the order, dated 17.10.2006 passed by

the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godhavarikhani

dismissing I.D.No.23 of 2005, which was filed questioning the order of

removal of the petitioner from service.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri K.Anantha Reddy, learned

counsel appearing for Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Smt. S.Varalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for

U.Shanti Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents and

perused the record.

3. The petitioner was working as a Driver in the respondent No.1-

Corporation. As the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent from

2 JS, J

W.P.No.23141 of 2007

duty from 04.09.1996 to 04.03.1997 without any intimation or prior

sanction of leave, an inquiry was conducted in the matter. Ultimately, the

petitioner was removed from service vide Proceedings No. P3/1(1)/97-

ADB, dated 20.06.1997. The appeal and review filed by the petitioner

were dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Labour Court

by filing the above I.D. The Labour Court, upon considering the material

available on record, dismissed the I.D. by the impugned order.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had remained

unauthorizedly absent from duty continuously from 04.09.1996 without

prior sanction of leave or any kind of intimation. Thereupon, based on the

relevant records, the respondent No.1-Corporation issued a charge sheet

dated 04.03.1997 to the petitioner. Though the petitioner acknowledged

receipt of the charge sheet, he failed to submit his explanation within the

stipulated time. Therefore, the respondent No.1-Corporation conducted

a domestic inquiry and issued notice to the petitioner. In spite of the

same, the petitioner did not turn up for the inquiry. Basing on the

evidence available on record, the petitioner was removed from service.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, and the same was rejected

on merits. The only ground urged by the petitioner before the Labour

Court was that the respondent No.1-Corporation conducted an ex parte

domestic inquiry behind his back and that the findings of the Inquiry

Officer were perverse and biased. It was further contended that the

3 JS, J

W.P.No.23141 of 2007

respondent No.1-Corporation did not call for the comments or objections

of the petitioner on the findings of the Inquiry Officer and that a show-

cause notice was issued straightaway without calling for his remarks on

the inquiry report. Thus, according to the petitioner, the predetermined

notion of the respondent No.1-Corporation to somehow remove him from

service was crystal clear. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the

entire proceedings of the respondent No.1-Corporation were biased,

void, and unsustainable.

5. The Labour Court, taking into consideration of the contentions

raised before it, observed in the impugned order that the petition was

filed after a delay of six years. The petitioner’s non-participation in the

domestic inquiry as well as his non-appearance before the Labour Court

reflects his conduct and shows that he had no interest in continuing in the

service of the Corporation. The misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism

was held to be proved against the petitioner, and the Labour Court found

that it could not be said that the punishment imposed by the respondent

No.1-Corporation, namely removal from service, was disproportionate to

the misconduct of unauthorized absence without prior permission or

sanction of leave. The Labour Court further observed that the petitioner

who remained unauthorizedly absent for a long period and was a chronic

absentee, which constitutes a major misconduct, was not entitled to any

leniency, particularly when he showed