K. Srinivasulu vs APSRTC, Hyderabad and others

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Harinath, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC.

The petitioner, in the instant writ petition is a conductor. He was served with a charge memo dated 12-4-1999 on 16-4-1999 containing certain serious charges against him. Pursuant to the enquiry notice dated 25-5-1999, the petitioner reported for inquiry on 8-6-1999, but the same is stated to have been adjourned from time to time. The petitioner is stated to have made a representation on 12-7-1999 requesting the Enquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry in Telugu as per the guidelines issued by the respondent-Corporation in the year 1991. But, on 22-7-1999, the enquiry was conducted in English. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer refused to translate the questions into Telugu and also refused to look at or take into consideration about the Police complaint given about Statistical Return (SR) or the medical certificate issued by the Government Doctor, both dated 12-4-1999, which are vital documents.

However, the respondent through letter dated 14-9-1999 served the petitioner with a copy of Chief Inspector (Enquiries) report along with inquiry findings, requiring him to submit his objections. At this stage, the petitioner is stated to have raised his objection and requested the respondents to consider his representation dated 12-7-1999 and 8-8-1999, to conduct the enquiry in Telugu.

The gravamen of the complaint in the instant writ petition relates to the action of the respondents in refusing to consider the request of the petitioner for holding the enquiry in Telugu language.

In my considered opinion, the respondents ought to have considered the request of the petitioner, as no prejudice would have been caused to the respondent, if the enquiry is held in Telugu language. After all the principals of natural justice require enquiry to be fair and reasonable. May be the petitioner may not be that much proficient to understand the proceedings, if the enquiry is conducted in English. It is brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that only TTI, along was examined on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, as a witness. The petitioner is stated to have put some questions in Telugu which were translated into English by the Officer concerned. But some of the questions that were put by the petitioner in Telugu have not gone on record is the version of the petitioner.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and the circular issued by the respondent-Corporation directing its Officers to conduct the enquiries in Vernacular, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents herein to re-examine the sole witness examined on behalf of the Corporation and to record his deposition in Telugu. The petitioner shall be permitted to put questions in Telugu and the same shall be recorded in Telugu language itself. This deposition, now to be recorded pursuant to this direction, shall form part of the record.

The respondents are also directed to receive the copy of the complaint staled to have been filed by the petitioner before the Police in Telugu and also the Doctor certificate. They shall also form part of the record. If the petitioner wants to record his statement, the same shall also be recorded in Telugu. The other proceedings and the material relevant for the purpose of finally deciding the matter and upon which the Corporation wants to place reliance shall be translated into Telugu and made available to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner shall submit his explanation in Telugu pursuant to the notice now served upon him. The further proceedings shall go on in accordance with law. There shall be an order accordingly.

It is needless to clarify that the respondents obviously cannot proceed further in the matter until the aforementioned requirements are complied with.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.