ORDER
P.S. Naryana, J.
1. The writ petitioner who was removed as Conductor by A.P. State Road Transport Coorporation, being unsuccessful in Appeal and also Review, had preferred the present writ petition questioning the order of removal. The details relating to the order of removal, appeal preferred and the rejection thereof and the review made as against the said order and the rejection thereof also had been narrated in detail.
2. It is also stated that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in violation of principles of natural justice and however it is stated that even if the proved charges are taken into consideration the order of removal is highly disproportionate. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit it is specifically stated how the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet personally on 1-6-1998, for which he failed to submit any explanation and in such circumstances, the case was entrusted to the Enquiry Officer to submit a detailed report after conducting Departmental Enquiry and ultimately after following the procedure which had been narrated in detail, the impugned order was passed and the Appeal was filed beyond time and the Appeal also was rejected and aggrieved by the same, Review also was filed and the same also ended in rejection. It was also stated that the appropriate remedy is to approach the Industrial Court by raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Ms. Malleswari, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had contended that the charges framed in fact are not serious in nature and the first charge is relating to unauthorized absence for one day and the second charge is relating to the alleged habitual irregular attendance to avoid ordinary charted duties. The learned counsel also contended that the second charge was framed only with a view to strengthen the first charge and even otherwise, the impugned order of removal is highly disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to several of the decisions i.e., Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Malaikannu A. v. Managing Director, Marudhu Pandiar Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr., Thanikachalam M. and Ors. v. Maduranthakam Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society and Ors., Union of India and Ors. v. D.S. Karekar and Ors., Rajahah M. and Ors. v. State Bank of India, Mumbai and Ors.
4. Ms. Sujatha, the learned Counsel representing the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation had vehemently contended that the remedy by way of a Writ Petition is misconceived remedy and the petitioner being a workman could have approached the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal seeking appropriate reliefs. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in the counter-affidavit and had submitted that the evidence available on record clearly goes to show that an order of removal is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further the learned Counsel contended that though opportunity was given to the writ petitioner, he had not availed the opportunity and hence the writ petitioner cannot question the enquiry as it is his own fault in not participating in the enquiry and hence the writ petitioner cannot throw any blame on the Management.
5. Heard both the Counsel and perused the material available on record.
6. The other factual details may not be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition. However, the charges framed are as follows:
(1) For having absented for your charted duties from 21-4-98 to 22-4-98 and reported sick to cover absenteeism thereby caused inconvenience to the Traffic Supervisors and travelling public apart from loss of revenue to the Corporation, which is a misconduct and attracts Conduct Reg. 4 of 1963.
(2) For having maintained habitual irregular attendance to avoid ordinary charted duties which is a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963.
7. The facts are not in controversy. It is not in dispute that petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 1-6-1998. But he had failed to submit the explanation and an enquiry was conducted following the procedure and ultimately an independent conclusion was arrived at relating to the proved misconduct and on the facts and circumstances, removal from service was considered to be an appropriate punishment. It is no doubt true that the Appeal was rejected on the ground of delay and also the Review was rejected. As can be seen from the impugned order of the rejection of Review by the 2nd respondent, it is clear that the 2nd respondent had more concentrated on charge No. 2 than charge No. 1. Be that as it may, in the beginning portion of the order, it is mentioned as though the petitioner had absented from duties from 21-4-1998 to 28-4-1998 and evidently it may be a mistake or it is because of non-application of mind in proper perspective. As can be seen from the proved misconduct, the unauthorized absenteeism being for one day and also the second charge relates to habitual irregular attendance the decision taken by the Corporation to impose the penalty of removal when several other punishments are available, definitely appears to be disproportionate with the proved misconduct. At this distant point of time, in the light of the enquiry conducted and in the light of the fact that the writ petitioner had not availed the opportunity, it cannot be said that the enquiry as such is vitiated. But however, in the light of the fact that the punishment is disproportionate to the proved misconduct, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the 2nd respondent -Regional Manager, Cuddapah, to reconsider the decision relating to the removal of the petitioner and explore the possibilities of imposition of other punishments contemplated by the Regulations in this regard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no other relief can be granted at this stage. The 2nd respondent shall take a decision in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.