S Radha Krishna Vs Apsrtc

S RADHA KRISHNA, S/O. S. YETHI RAJULA SHETTY, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC- EX. CONDUCTOR, E. NO. 408488, RIO. 10-153/1/3, SLV TALKIES BACK SIDE, KOILAKUNTA POST AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. KURNOOL

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

APSRTC, THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, BUS DEPOT, BANAGANAPALLI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. KURNOOL

¶15

THE DY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, APSRTC, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, duly calling for the records from the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in respect of I.D. No. 16 of 2015, quash the impugned award dated 03.01.2017 made in I.D. No. 16 of 2015, published on 30.08.2017 for not grating any relief as arbitrary, unjust

¶18

2

¶19

VS,J W.P.No.2680 of 2018

¶20

and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the petitioner pray this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstatement the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits including the salary payable from the date of removal from service in the interest of justice and fair play

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.V PADMANABHA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶25

The Court made the following:

3

VS,J

W.P.No.2680 of 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:

¶31

“…to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, duly calling for the records from the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in respect of I.D. No. 16 of 2015, quash the impugned award dated 03.01.2017 made in I.D. No. 16 of 2015, published on 30.08.2017 for not grating any relief as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the petitioner pray this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstatement the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits including the salary payable from the date of removal from service in the interest of justice…”

¶32

2. The petitioner herein joined the services of the respondents’

¶33

corporation as conductor on 25.01.1992 and his service was regularized with effect from 01.08.1992. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 30.07.2007, by framing three charges, as he was absent for duties from 17.03.2007 till 30.07.2007 i.e., the date of issuance of charge sheet. In spite of the same, as the petitioner did not attend to duty, a report was submitted on 03.09.2007 for his continuous absence to duties basing on which, another charge sheet dated 04.09.2007 was issued to the petitioner, but in vain. As such, the petitioner was issued a notice on 02.01.2008 with a direction to attend enquiry.

4

VS,J

W.P.No.2680 of 2018

As the petitioner did not come forward, the respondent authorities have conducted an exparte enquiry and submitted a report dated 18.01.2008 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved. Basing on the said enquiry report, the 1^st respondent, vide proceedings bearing No.E1/1(4)/2007-BPL, dated 15.02.2008 removed the petitioner from services of the respondent corporation. The said removal order was challenged by the petitioner before the Chairman – cum – Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Anantapur vide I.D.No.16 of 2015 wherein, no ocular evidence was adduced by either of the parties, however, the petitioner got marked Exs.W1 to W10 and the respondents got marked Exs.M1 to M10. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments submitted by learned counsel on

¶38

either sides, framed the following issues for determination:

¶39

1. Whether any improper enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer thereby violated principles of natural justice?

¶40

2. Whether the findings of the enquiry officer requires any interference?

¶41

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for?

¶42

The Tribunal, after considering the contentions and

¶43

submissions made by either side, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner and dismissed the I.D.No.16 of 2015 vide order dated 03.01.2017, by confirming the orders passed by the 1^st respondent vide proceedings dated 15.02.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ

5

VS,J

W.P.No.2680 of 2018

petition is filed on the ground that the Tribunal committed error by passing

¶48

the impugned error without deciding the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent corporation and by observing that the petitioner straightaway filed medical certificates (Ex.W7 to W10) before the Tribunal without producing the same before the respondent authorities for consideration.

¶49

Heard Sri. V. Padmanabharao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent corporation.

¶50

The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. It can be seen from the material available on record that as the petitioner was in continuous absence to duty from 17.03.2007, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 30.07.2007 framing the following charges:

¶51

“1. For having absented for your duties unauthorisedly from 17-32007 to till date resulting in dislocation of services and causing much inconvenience to the travelling public, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.

¶52

For having maintained very bad record of attendance from January 2007 to July 2007 due to which the Traffic supervisors faced much inconvenience in operation of the services, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC employees (conduct) Reg.1963.

¶53

For having left the Head Quarters without permission from the concerned, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.”

¶54

6

¶55

VS,J W.P.No.2680 of 2018

¶56

Though the respondent authorities issued a charge sheet (Ex.M2) fixing the date of enquiry on 07.01.2008, 11.01.2008 and 17.01.2008, the petitioner did not attend the same. Pursuant to an enquiry report submitted by the authorities, a show cause notice (Ex.M5) of removal from service was issued to the petitioner on 29.01.2008 to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation (Ex.M7) on 07.02.2008 denying the allegations leveled against him. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1998, he met with an accident whereby he sustained severe injuries; after treatment, he joined for duty and performed without any break, however, because of the very same issue, the petitioner fell ill and as such, he was unable to attend duties from 17.03.2007 to 30.06.2007. Dissatisfied over the same, the respondent authorities have removed the petitioner from service.

¶57

On behalf of the petitioner, Exs.W1 to W10 were filed. Exs.W7 to W10 are medical certificates issued by the doctors who allegedly treated the petitioner. A perusal of the said exhibits would disclose that the doctor advised the petitioner to take bed rest from 30.06.2007 for diagnosis of centre impress lumbar spondylitis. However, though the petitioner was called for attending enquiry by the respondent authorities during the course of enquiry and in spite of submitting an explanation to the show cause notice dated 29.01.2008, the petitioner has not disclosed any information

¶58

7

¶59

VS,J W.P.No.2680 of 2018

¶60

with regard to the treatment he has undergone under Exs.M7 to M10. Had the petitioner put forth the said medical reports before the respondent authorities during the course of enquiry or while submitting his explanation to the show cause notice, instead of filing the same before the Tribunal, the respondent authorities would have an opportunity to refer the case of the petitioner to medical board for further action. Though the said documents were very much available with the petitioner at the time of submitting his explanation to the show cause notice, nothing prevented him from furnishing the same to the respondent authorities. Without doing so, the petitioner has straight away approached the Tribunal. Thus, the punishment imposed by the respondent corporation vide proceedings dated 15.02.2008 needs no interference.

¶61

Furthermore, it is to be observed that before filing a petition before the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the removal order dated 15.02.2008 before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC on 10.01.2013, which is after a lapse of four years. As such, the appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC. It can also be observed that though the petitioner was removed from service by the respondent corporation on 15.02.2008, he approached the Tribunal in the year 2015, which is after a lapse of more than seven years. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. v. T.T. Murali

¶62

8

¶63

VS,J W.P.No.2680 of 2018

¶64

Babu¹ , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. When an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and latches may not be fatal but in most circumstances, inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant--a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

¶65

10. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy

¶66

Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC was in the year 2013 which is after a delay of four years from the date of removal i.e. 15.02.2008. Though the same was rejected, the petitioner filed an industrial dispute before the Tribunal challenging the removal order dated 15.02.2008, in the year 2015. The said delay reflects the inactivity and inaction on the part of the petitioner who has

¶67

1 (2014) 4 SCC 108

9

VS,J

W.P.No.2680 of 2018

forgotten the basic norms as mentioned hereinabove. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber cannot to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts and cannot be rescued. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, being aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approached the respondent authorities as well as the Tribunal at his own leisure or pleasure.

¶72

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.16 of 2015, dated 03.01.2017. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶73

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶74

_____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶75

06.07.2026 Gss

¶76

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes Reportable No

S Radha Krishna v. Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Radha Krishna v. Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Lotus Constructions Vs C Sai Prasad

Imperial Coastal Infra Vs Sri Pradyumna

G. Venkata Rao Vs Sri K.S. Jawar Reddy, I.A.S

M. Rajeswara Rao, Vs Sri Venkateswara University Tirupathi

N. Venkata Rangam Vs State of Ap

S.v.Seshagiri Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh