Ch. Balaiah, vs Apsrtc,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2362 Tel

     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

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.

1994 Supp (3) SCC 755

2017 (1) ALD 254

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

2016 (1) ALD 32

(2005) 8 SCC 264

(2013) 2 SCC 740

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

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