M RAM MOHAN RAO Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LAWS(APH)-1992-3-42
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 21,1992

M.RAM MOHAN RAO Appellant
VERSUS
A.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HYDERABAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

R. VS. BARNSLEY M.B.C.EX P. HOOK [REFERRED TO]
R VS. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT,EX P. BENWELL [REFERRED TO]
COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS VS. MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. H C GOEL [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA PARMA NANDA VS. PARMA NANDA:STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

A AMARENDERNATH VS. SARASWATHI GRAMEENA BANK [LAWS(APH)-1993-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
N H LAMANI VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT [LAWS(APH)-1993-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD GUNFOUNDRY HYD VS. V K GADGIL [LAWS(APH)-1994-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
S A JOHN VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER APSRTC MACHERLA [LAWS(APH)-1995-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
N CHANDRA SEKHAR VS. DISTRICT JUDGE ELURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-1995-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
A. AMARENDERNATH VS. CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, SARASWATHI GRAMEENA BANK [LAWS(APH)-1993-2-80] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Mohammed Sardar Ali Khan, J. - (1.)This Writ Appeal is out of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 15477/84 dated 11th August, 1986, whereina learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed for quashing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Board of Directors of the A.P. Road Transport Corporation represented by its Chairman as manifested in Resolution No.124/1984 dated 7-8-1984 communicated to the petitioner in Reference No.A1/27 (22)/84-PD dated 29-8-1984 confirming the proceedings of the first respondent dated 8-11-1983 bearing Ref. No.Ea/138(4)/82-PD.
(2.)The facts of the case as emerging from a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner entered into the service of the first respondent-Corporation in the year 1965 as Probationary Assistant Mechanical Engineer. For his selection, he had qualified himself in a competitive examination. He holds the - degree of B.E. (Mechanical) and has also acquired the Post-Graduate degree of M.Tech. in Plant Engineering and Management and M.B.A., after joining the service. He claims that he is fully qualified to hold the responsible post of Assistant Mechanical Engineer (Industrial Engineering) when disciplinary proceedings were initiated in April 1982. The petitioner had completed 18 years of service, which according to him, has been of unblemished nature and he had received letters of appreciation and merit service from the higher authorities. He had also received an award of merit from His Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. By proceedings dated 12-4-1982, the petitioner was placed under suspension. A charge memo was communicated to him stating, inter alia, that he had associated himself with the Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council for conducting a training programme on "Office clerical efficiency" at Nirmal for Andhra Pradesh Girijan Co-operative Corporation from 16-12-1981 to 19-12-1981 in consideration of remuneration without sanction of competent authority. It is further stated in the charge memo that he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly on two days, 16th and 17th December 1981 and failed to obtain sanction for regularisation of such unauthorised absence. Further more, it is stated that he left headquarters without permission and drew wages for 16th and 17th December 1981, suppressing the fact of such unauthorised absence. The petitioner is also supposed to have collected a sum of Rs.2,100/- from the Andhra Pradesh Girijan Co-operative Corporation and misappropriated the said amount representing himself as the representative of the Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 21-4-1982 denying all the charges. He also stated that he was placed under suspension without any preliminary enquiry which was initiated with a mala fide intention to damage his career. He denied receipt of any remuneration of Rs.2,100/- and stated that he had merely designed the course schedule on the request of the Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council and the first respondent Corporation is an institutional member of the Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council. By virtue of the said association, he was entitled to render scientific expertise and service at the disposal of the Productivity Council. He also denied the charge of unauthorised absence on the said alleged dates and misappropriation.
(3.)The then Chief Mechanical Engineer (Production), Sri J. Radhakrishna Reddy was appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry under Regulation 12 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967. In support of the charge memo, the Corporation examined some witnesses, who also relied on certain documents, which according to the petitioner, are of impeachable authenticity. He submitted his own documents. Apart from himself, he examined three witnesses. A show cause notice proposing the penalty of dismissal from service dated 19-2-1983 was issued. He was asked to submit his objections. It seems the report of the Enquiry officer was not communicated to him along with the show cause notice. Later on, it was frunished to him without bearing any date or signature of the Enquiry Officer through a report dated 19-5-1983. On a perusal of the report, the appellant gave a reply dated 10-6-1983. He was held guilty of all the charges and a penalty of dismissal was imposed onhim(videproceedingsNo.Ea/138(4)/82-PDdatcd 18-11-1983. Anappcal to the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation was filed by the appellant under Regulation 22 of the Corporation Regulations, which was disposed of by the 2nd respondent (vide resolu tion No.124/1984 dated 7-8-1984. The appellant filed the writ petition against the orders of dismissal of his services, which was dismissed by the learned single judge. As a result of the order passed by the learned single judge, this writ appeal has been filed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.