@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.@mdashThe present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent Corporation as arbitrary and
illegal in dismissing the petitioner from service, through Proceedings No. P2/248(1)/06, Sangareddy Depot, dated 29.04.2008, on the premise that
he contested as sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat Elections held during the month of July/August, 2006, without tendering resignation, especially
after continuing the petitioner in service after the elections for a period of 14 months. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is working as
Mechanic in the respondent Corporation, having joined the service in 1980. In course of time, he contested in the Gram Panchayat elections held
on 10.08.2006 staking a claim to the post of Sarpanch, but he has lost the contest. Since he did not tender his resignation, nor did he take any
prior leave from the employer/Corporation, treating it as misconduct, the respondent Corporation charge sheeted the petitioner on 09.10.2006.
Eventually, having not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Respondent Corporation removed the petitioner from
service by way of imposing major punishment through its Order dated 29.04.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ
Petition.
2. The Respondent Corporation filed its Counter contending that no public servant could be permitted to take part in any political process. Further,
even otherwise, the petitioner has not sought any leave from the Corporation to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch of Chintakunta Village
in Gram Panchayat Election held on 02.08.2006. The Respondent Corporation has taken aid of Regulation 23 of the A.P. State Road Transport
Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, (''Regulations, 1963'' for short) and pleaded that no employee shall canvass or otherwise
interfere or use influence in connection with, or take part in, an election to any legislature or local authority, or a trade union of which he is not a
member or office bearer.
3. The respondent corporation has thus pleaded its justification that since there was a clear infraction of the Regulation 23(3) of the Regulations,
1963 on the part of the petitioner, and since it amounted to a major misconduct, the petitioner was rightly charge sheeted and was eventually
removed from service, his explanation not having been found satisfactory.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the first place he submitted an application to the Corporation authorities
seeking permission to contest as Sarpanch, but as no orders were passed either way, he was constrained to contest the election due to the
pressure in the village. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed the fact that the panchayat elections are at the gross-roots level of the
democratic process, without any political affiliations. As such, it is not correct on the part of the respondent Corporation to contend that the
petitioner has participated in any political activity. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner did not have any information at his
disposal that he should resign his job before filing the nomination for the elections. Not even did the election officers inform him, while scrutinising
the nomination papers, in which he had informed about his occupation.
5. It is further contended that the Notification of the State Election Commission issued in the context of gram panchayat elections was rather
misleading. The State Election Commission issued a Letter to the Executive Director of A.P.S.R.T.C. on 14.06.2006 stating that under the
Provisions of A.P. Panchayat Act, the employees of Singareni Collieries Company and respondent Corporation, except those working in the
capacity of Manager, are eligible to contest the elections. Accordingly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
has bona fide contested the election without any political affiliation or affinity.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner was allowed by the Corporation to continue in service for 14
months after his contesting the elections, thus giving a scope to the petitioner to believe that whatever the supposed lapse occurred in participating
the election process, that was waived by the respondent Corporation. After the lapse of considerable time, though the petitioner has genuinely
misconstrued the circular issued by the State Election Commission declaring that there was no bar to contest the elections for those employees,
whose cadre was not found mentioned therein, the Corporation ought not to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, much less
imposing the highest punishment of removal.
7. Eventually, the learned counsel has submitted that after the submission of explanation, no principles of natural justice were followed and the
departmental enquiry was conducted ex parte, without ensuring service of notice to the petitioner, thus causing immense prejudice to him.
8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that mere ignorance of law on the part of the petitioner
could not come to his rescue. He has also stated that the petitioner cannot take shelter under the alleged letter dated 14.06.2006 said to have been
issued by the State Election Commission to the Executive Director of A.P.S.R.T.C. or any other authority, since the very State Election
Commission has clarified that insofar as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, if there is any violation of statutory provision or the regulation
that governs its employees, the Corporation is at liberty to initiate and take appropriate action. In sum and substance, the learned Standing Counsel
has submitted that participating in election process without resigning to the post as a pre-condition is in clear violation of Article 23(3) of the
Regulations, 1963, and as such, it is a major misconduct. The punishment imposed against the petitioner is not disproportionate. The learned
Standing Counsel has also contended that, apart from vague allegation that the petitioner was put to prejudice on account of the ex parte
departmental enquiry, he has not stated in specific terms as to the nature of prejudice.
9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation, apart from perusing the
record.
10. On factual front there is not much dispute. The petitioner is a mechanic working in the respondent Corporation since 1980; he has contested
elections, which are apolitical, having no party affiliations. There is every scope to interpret the Letter addressed to the Executive Director of
A.P.S.R.T.C. by the State Election Commission that only a specified class of employees working in the Corporation was barred from contesting
the elections, thus leaving it open to the rest of the employees to contest. In any event, the fact remains that the petitioner has lost the elections and
soon thereafter re-joined the service. It is indisputable that the petitioner was allowed to work 14 continuous months after the elections.
11. As a matter of subsequent development, it is evident from the record that this Court through an interim direction dated 06.09.2008 allowed the
petitioner to continue in service, and even the Vacate Petition filed by the Corporation was dismissed making the interim orders absolute.
12. It may be noticed that the petitioner continued to be in service for 14 months after the elections. Added to it, the notification of the State
Election Commission is highly confusing, if not misleading, to say nothing more. In the light of the subsequent clarification issued by the State
Election Commission, the conduct of the petitioner in contesting elections cannot be found fault with retroactively. There is also force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the submission of his explanation in February, 2007, he was allowed to continue in
service for 14 months, and in April, 2008 orders of termination were passed. Now the petitioner has reached mid 50s, not having much service
left.
13. Incidentally, during the course of making submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that earlier this Court
under similar circumstances allowed through its Common Order, dt. 7.10.2013 in WP Nos. 10531 and 21366 of 2008 filed by two other
employees of the Corporation, who too faced similar charges for having taken part in the same elections for Gram Panchayat.
14. In view of these circumstances, I consider that the violation of the Regulation 23(3) of the Regulations, 1963, if any, deserves to be condoned
and is accordingly condoned. Consequently, the Proceedings No. P2/248(1)/06, Sangareddy Depot, dated 29.04.2008, through which the
petitioner was sought to be removed from service, are set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous
Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.