- (1.)THE petitioner was employed as a Driver in Suryapet Depot of APSRTC. The Depot Manager, the 2nd respondent herein, issued a charge-sheet dated 27. 11. 2006, alleging that the petitioner contested in the election for the office of sarpanch of Ambajipet Grampanchayat, held on 2. 8. 2006, without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority, in terms of Regulation 23 (3) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations 1963. A further allegation was made to the effect that the petitioner did not inform the depot authorities about his contesting in the election. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24. 3. 2008, admitting the factum of his contesting the elections. He, however, stated that in view of the clarification issued by the State Election Commission, he found that it is not necessary to obtain prior permission, or to resign his job. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 1. 7. 2008, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenges the order of dismissal, mainly on the ground that it was not preceded by domestic enquiry, or the show-cause notice, contemplated under Clause (13) of regulation 12 of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal)Regulations 1967, (for short "the Regulations" ).
(2.)SRI V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the state Election Commission had issued clarification, just before the elections, to the effect that the employees of the Government undertakings can also contest in the elections. He submits that even assuming that the petitioner has committed any acts of misconduct, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents, to conduct domestic enquiry and to issue a second show-cause notice, in case, the enquiry officer held the charges as proved. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned order is passed, in clear violation of the service regulations.
(3.)SMT. E. G. Umadevi, learned standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that once the petitioner admitted that he contested in the elections, without resigning his job, there was neither any necessity to conduct domestic enquiry, nor to issue a second show-cause notice. She submits that the occasion to conduct departmental enquiry arises, only when an employee denies or disputes the charge framed against him.