- (1.) THE petitioner is working as a driver in A. P. State Road Transport Corporation. Adoni Dept in Kurnool district. The petitioner was suspended and chargesheeted in respect of three charges. The charges are as follows : Charge No. 1. For having maintained irregular attendence from January 1984 to March, 1984 to an extent of 154 days which is a serious offence which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 8 (xxxi) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations. 1963. Charge No. 2. For having caused inconvenience to the travelling public and consequential loss which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 8 (xxxii) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Charge No. 3. For having rudely behaved with the Divisional Manager, Kurnool, when you are counselled by him, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 8 (xxxii) of Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. A charge memo was served on 20th March, 1985 by the Depot Manager, Adoni and an explanation was submitted by the petitioner denying the charges on 15th April, 1985. An enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was submitted by the Depot Manager. At that stage the proceedings were transferred to the Divisional Manager, Cuddapah by the orders of the Regional Manager, Cuddapah dated 7th September 1985. Thereafter the Divisional Manager, Cuddapah passed an order of removal on 20th November, 1985 and on appeal before the Regional Manager, Cuddapah it was rejected on 23rd June, 1986. The writ petition was preferred against the said order.
(2.) IN this writ petition, it is contended by Sri G. Bikshapati representing Sri G. Prabhkar Rao, that the Divisional Manager, Kurnool was the complainant in that case, particularly in regard to charge No. 3, and that in as much as the Chief Inspector, Kurnool, his immediate subordinate, conducted enquiry and held that the charges were proved, the entire proceedings were vitiated. According to him the appointment of the Chief Inspector, Kurnool as the Enquiry Officer and his framing the charges and conducting the enquiry is bad. The Divisional Manager, Kurnool to whom the Enquiry Officer was subordinate was a witness in that case and had deposed against the officer. The mistake was realised by the Department at a late stage and the matter was placed before the Regional Manager, Cuddapah. According to the counsel the Regional Manager should have scrapped the entire enquiry and started a de novo enquiry instead of merely ordering transfer of the file at that stage to the Divisional Manager, Cuddapah for issuing the second show cause notice. It is also contended that charge Nos. 1 to 3 do not come within the particular misconduct attributed to the petitioner under the A. P. S. R. T. C. (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the Corporation has, however, contended that the first question relating to violation of principles of natural justice was not specifically raised in the writ petition and that the second question relating to the misconduct did not come within the provisions quoted in the charge memo. At the most, it amounted to a wrong reference to a statutory provision and did not prejudice the case of the petitioner.;