AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On 1-10-1996, the petitioners who are the employees of the respondents-Corporation went to the A.P.S.R.T.C. Complex at Tirupathi in order to discuss certain issues relating to the employees and after having discussions with the Office bearers of the Union, when they were stepping out of the Office Building, the police have arrested both the petitioners alleging that they were in an intoxicating condition. Thereafter, both the petitioners were produced before the Doctor in S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, who, after examining the petitioners, found that the petitioners neither consumed any liquor nor were they in intoxicating state. However, the police registered a Crime against both of them and filed charge-sheet in the criminal Court which was registered as S.T.C.No.882 of 1996. It seems, the petitioners were convicted and each of them paid Rs.500/- by way of fine. Thereupon, it is alleged that on alerter dated 3-10-1996 addressed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, East Police Station to the Depot Manager, the Depot Manager issued charge-sheet dated 23-10-1996 to both of the petitioners and both the petitioners were kept under suspension. The petitioners submitted their detailed explanations to the charge-sheet. Without satisfying with the explanations submitted by the petitioners herein, enquiries were initiated and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding both the petitioners guilty of the charges. Basing on the enquiry report, the petitioners were served with show-cause notices of removal.
Having aggrieved by the orders of suspension, the charge-sheets and the show-cause notices of removal, the petitioners filed these writ petitions. It is the contention of the petitioners that the police foisted false cases against them even though the Doctor who examined them on the first occasion opined that the petitioners did not consumer any alcohol. It is further stated that the enquiry initiated against both the petitioners is vitiated as the respondents-Corporation did not follow the procedure prescribed for conduct of the enquiry. It is further submitted that the petitioners were also deprived of their valuable right of submitting effective explanations to the final show-cause notices of removal as they were not supplied with copies of the medical reports and the enquiry reports. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents-Corporation, in order to wreak vengeance against the petitioners as they are actively participating in trade-union activities, got the cases foisted against them and conducted a farce enquiry with a pre-determined mind and issued the show-cause notices of removal. It is submitted that the action of the respondents-Corporation is wholly opposed to the principles of natural justice.
On behalf of the respondents-Corporation, the 1st Respondent filed counter denying the allegation of the petitioners that they were not supplied with copies of enquiry'' reports. It is categorically submitted that all the necessary documents were sent to the petitioners addresses along with show-cause notices of removal but they were returned unserved. Therefore, the show-cause notices of removal were displayed on the notice-board. While so, it is submitted that, on the petitioners approaching the office of the respondent, they were supplied with copies of enquiry report. It is further submitted that since the petitioner in W.P.No.685/1997 could not submit his explanation to the show-cause notice of removal within the time prescribed, final order of removal was also passed against him on 27-1-997.
Therefore, when it is stated that the Corporation has already passed the final order of removal against the petitioner in W.P.No.685/1997, as per the provisions of the A.P.S.R.T.C. (C.C. & A) Regulations, 1967, the delinquent-employee has to file an appeal before the departmental authorities.
Be that as it may, as already noticed, the present writ petitions arc filed questioning the orders of suspension, charge-sheet and the final show-cause notices of removal. It must be mentioned here itself that against the impugned show-cause notices of removal, the petitioners can submit their explanations to the authorities and if the authorities feel that the said explanation is reasonable, further action pursuant to the enquiry can be dropped. Even otherwise, if any final order of removal is passed, as was done in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.685/1997 subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners are not remedy less. There is a remedy of filing an appeal to the departmental authority and a further revision to the next higher authority. If any of the petitioners still feel aggrieved by any of the decisions of the departmental authorities, they can as well seek for reference u/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Without exhausting all these statutory remedies available to the petitioners, the petitioners have straightaway invoked this Court''s extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the show-cause notices of removal, suspension order and charge-sheet, which are not final orders that are amenable for challenge on any of the grounds urged by the petitioners before this Court. Even the contention of the petitioners that they were not furnished with copies of enquiry reports etc., is also found to be not correct. The facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, do not warrant any indulgence of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There arc not bona fides in the attempt made by the petitioners in invoking this Court''s writ jurisdiction.
For the above reasons, I am of the view that the writ petitions are liable for dismissal. They are accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.