THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.7392 OF 2010

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned award dated 23.09.2009 made in I.D.No.73 of 2009 published on 29.12.2009 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in not granting any relief as illegal, arbitrary and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits including back wages.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the service of the respondents’ Corporation as Cleaner on 06.04.1991 and he was removed from the service on 25.05.2001. While he was working under the control of respondent No.1, respondent No.1 issued the charged sheet dated 19.10.2000 alleging that he was absent for his duties from 14.09.2000 to 13.10.2000 unauthorizedly. He stated that his mother was admitted in Hospital and his leave was granted on 14.09.2000 and 15.09.2000. As his mother’s health condition was critical, he could not attend his duties form 16.09.2000. An exparte enquiry was conducted and thereafter his name was deleted from the approval list of selection list as a measure of misconduct. The tribunal has confirmed the removal order by dismissing I.D.No.73 of 2009. Against the same, petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

4. In a counter filed by respondents, they stated that petitioner was appointed as a causal cleaner w.e.f. 06.04.1991 and on the charge of unauthorized absence, he was removed from service on 25.01.1995 and he was reengaged into service on 30.06.2000. In the Award passed by the Tribunal, it was observed that the petitioner was absent for 29 days. It was also held that the petitioner approached the Tribunal in I.D.No.73 of 2009 after 8 years. Enquiry Officer issued notice to attend the enquiry on 30.12.2000 and on 19.01.2001 though the petitioner acknowledged the notice, failed to attend the enquiry and thus exparte enquiry was conducted. Respondent No.1 sent a letter on 23.03.2001 to the petitioner advising him to attend the counseling within seven days. Though the petitioner received the letter, he did not attend the counseling. Respondent No.1 sent another letter on 21.04.2001 to the petitioner advising the petitioner to report for duty or report sick at APSRTC hospital and to submit the Sick Certificate within three days, but he failed to do so.

5. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that he was irresponsible in discharging the duties and even after advising him, the continued the same. No doubt, if the cleaner is removed from service, his family will be affected but the interest of the Corporation prevails over the interest of the individual as he failed to respond to the notice it clearly amounts to disobedience and recklessness on his part and it cannot be condoned. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in W.A.No.1143 of 2023, in which it was held that the absence of the appellant is only 18 days and the punishment of removal from service of the appellant is disproportionate. In this case, the petitioner was on unauthorized absence and even then instead of moulding himself, he continued the same, as such the facts of the Writ Appeal are different from this case. The Tribunal rightly considered all the points and dismissed the petition and thus the present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J DATE: 28.01.2025 CHS