K. Mallesham, vs Telangana State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2226 Tel

    HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

             Writ Petition No.30778 of 2016
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

"to issue writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated P2/1(49)/2009-MSRD, dt 17.11.2009 passed by 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and Judgments of this Honble Court and set aside the same with all consequential benefits including reinstatement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits including back wages."

2. Heard Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Corporation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was appointed as contract driver in the

respondent Corporation on 21.07.2008 and his services

were terminated through the impugned proceedings dated

17.11.2009. Respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings,

issued charge memo on 25.07.2009 on the alleged ground

of unauthorised absence from 06.05.2009 to 20.07.2009,

though the petitioner submitted leave application

requesting the respondent Corporation to sanction the

leave on the ground that his wife admitted in the hospital

due to her ill-health. Not granting the leave, the

respondent Corporation conducted ex-parte enquiry and

basing on the said enquiry report, terminated the service of

the petitioner without giving reasonable opportunity and

also without furnishing enquiry report submitted by the

Enquiry Officer. Questioning the said termination order,

the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority

on 19.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted

another representation to the appellate authority on

28.07.2015. When the appellate authority failed to

consider the appeal, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel

submits that the respondent Corporation after following

due procedure as contemplated under the regulation,

issued charge memo and also appointed Enquiry Officer to

conduct the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting

detailed enquiry, submitted enquiry report on 23.09.2009.

The respondent Corporation issued show cause notice on

20.10.2009 by enclosing a copy of the Enquiry report

directing the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why

his services should not be terminated. The said notice was

returned unserved. He further submits that the said

information was also affixed on the notice board. Inspite of

the same, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation

nor participated in the enquiry. The respondent

Corporation has not received alleged appeal filed by the

petitioner dated 19.08.2010 and after lapse of a long

period, the petitioner filed appeal on 28.07.2015

questioning the termination order dated 17.11.2009 and

the same is not maintainable under law.

5. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that due to the ill-health of the

petitioner's wife, he could not attend the duty and his wife

died and the petitioner rendered two years of service as a

contract driver in the respondent Corporation and except

this employment, there is no other livelihood to maintain

himself and his children and requested this Court on

humanitative grounds to direct the respondent Corporation

to appoint the petitioner as contract driver afresh without

any other benefits.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice,

the petitioner is directed to submit a representation to the

respondent Corporation for seeking appointment to the

post of contract driver without any service benefits

including backwages within a period of two (2) weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such

representation, the respondent Corporation is directed to

reinstate the petitioner into service as contract driver

afresh within a period of two(02) months thereafter subject

to medical examination and also further the petitioner

shall be placed under observation for a period of one year

from the date of appointment and during the said period,

if the petitioner committed very same mistake the

respondents are entitled to remove the petitioner from

service without issuing any notice. It is made clear that

this order shall not be a precedent to any other case.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 11-09-2023 SA

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

Writ Petition No.30778 of 2016

Dated: 11.09.2023

Sa