Ch. Balaiah, vs Apsrtc,

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2362 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2022

Telangana High Court
Ch. Balaiah, vs Apsrtc, on 6 June, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
     THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

                    W.P.NO. 36756 OF 2014

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari and to quash the impugned order of termination from services vide proceedings, dated 08.05.2014 and as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 24.10.2014, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, attended benefits, back wages, etc.

2. Brief facts leading to the file this writ petition are that the petitioner has joined the service of the respondent corporation as a conductor on 18.04.2006 after being selected by the selection committee. Thereafter, while working under 3rd respondent, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 06.11.2012 for being absent for twelve days, on various days. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that due to high fever, the petitioner could not attend to the duties for the said twelve days. However, the 3rd respondent was not convinced and holding it to be a mis-conduct, terminated the services of the petitioner. An appeal filed by him was also dismissed and against the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He submits that the petitioner had reasonable cause for absence of twelve days and without considering the 2 PMD,J W.P.No.36756_2014 explanation of the petitioner, the respondents have imposed a harsh punishment of dismissal from service. He submits that petitioner should be reinstated into service with all attended benefits.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner ought to have availed alternate remedy of approaching the Labour Court and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that even on merits the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as the petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the charge sheet issued by the Corporation.

4. Both the parties relied upon on various judgments in favour of their contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Union of India and Others Vs. Giriraj Sharma1;
(ii) Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Janaki Ramudu2;
(iii) T.Chiranjeevi Vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another3.

1 1994 Supp (3) SCC 755 2 2017 (1) ALD 254 3 PMD,J W.P.No.36756_2014 The learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the following judgments:

(i) U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S.Pandey and Another4;
(ii) State Bank of India and Others Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey5.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record and also the judgments relied upon by both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that termination of service for unauthorized absence of twelve days is very harsh and needs modification. The objection of the respondents that the petitioner had an alternate remedy and therefore, should be directed to go to the Labour Court is also not acceptable because it is for more than eight years that the writ petition is pending before this Court and driving the petitioner to the Labour Court at this stage would be unreasonable and would amount to grave injustice. Therefore, this Court deems fit and proper to set aside the punishment order of termination and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service without the 50% back wages, and continuity of service and notional seniority for all purposes. Since the petitioner is 3 2016 (1) ALD 32 4 (2005) 8 SCC 264 5 (2013) 2 SCC 740 4 PMD,J W.P.No.36756_2014 allowed only 50% back wages, no further punishment is required in this matter. Therefore, the punishment of the authorities is modified to reinstate of the petitioner with 50% back wages and continuity of service and notional seniority for all purposes.

6. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Dated: 06.06.2022 bak 5 PMD,J W.P.No.36756_2014 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.No. 36756 OF 2014 Dated: 06.06.2022 bak