R. Kantha Rao, J. - (1.)HEARD Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents -Corporation.
(2.)IN these two writ petitions, the contention of the petitioners is that a shockingly disproportionate punishment was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in relation to a trivial misconduct alleged. The petitioners submit that they do not want to go into the controversial and disputed facts and ask this Court to dispose of the writ petitions considering the sole issue of proportionality of the punishment. Therefore, the question arises for determination is whether this Court can entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate orders notwithstanding the exhaustion of alternative remedies available to the petitioners. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents -Corporation did not file any counters in these writ petitions in view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioners do not insist upon examining the disputed questions of fact. Therefore, these two writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. Briefly stated, the following are the averments in the two writ petitions:
(a) In W.P. No. 18451 of 2015, it is submitted by the petitioner that he is a conductor in the respondents -Corporation, he fell sick on 01 -01 -2015 and was taking treatment in Government Community Health Centre, Telangana State Vidya Vidhan Parishat, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar district. He approached the 2nd respondent, produced a Medical Certificate issued by the Community Health Centre, Kalvakurthy and requested him to refer to take treatment in APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent refused to refer him to Tarnaka Hospital. As he was unable to perform the duties he continued to undergo treatment in Community Health Centre, Kalvakurthy and reported to duty on 20 -3 -2015 with Fitness Certificate. The 2nd respondent did not allow him to join the duty alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent from duties from 01 -01 -2015 to 05 -01 -2015. He was not served with any charge -sheet. However, he appeared before the Deputy Superintendent (Traffic), who was conducting enquiry on 27 -3 -2015. He was examined by the Enquiry Officer. During the course of enquiry, no witnesses were examined and his Medical Certificate was not taken into consideration. According to the petitioner, in his absence one P.S. Rao, Controller in the Department was examined. He came to know about the examination of the said witness only when the enquiry report was served on him calling for his objections. However, the enquiry was said to be completed and without considering the objection on the enquiry report submitted by the petitioner, pursuant to the show cause notice of removal from service, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 30 -4 -2015.

(b) The version of the petitioner is that in the enquiry conducted against him, no procedure has been followed, it was conducted in utter violation of principles of natural justice, the management witness was examined in his absence and he was denied the opportunity to cross -examine the said witness, the enquiry was motivated and it was initiated as the petitioner was insisting upon the 2nd respondent to pay the arrears of salary as per the orders of the High Court. Moreover, a major penalty of the removal from service was imposed on him for the charge of absenteeism for a period of 5 days. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of certiorari to quash the removal order and direct the respondents -Corporation to reinstate him into service.

(c) In W.P. No. 21988 of 2015, it is submitted by the petitioner that he was a conductor in the respondents -Corporation and he was appointed on 16 -6 -2009. On 26 -8 -2014 his maternal uncle, who was aged about 38 years, expired. On receiving the said information, he after intimating the Traffic officials of the 3rd respondent Depot over phone attended the funeral and was away from duties from 26 -8 -2014 till 02 -9 -2014 to discharge the duties consequent upon the death of his maternal uncle as there was no elder male member in the family. He reported to duty on 03 -9 -2014 and was allowed to attend the duties. However, on 24 -02 -2015, a removal order has been served on him in an arbitrary manner. According to the petitioner, though the removal order reveals that an enquiry was conducted by a Traffic official, in fact, no enquiry was conducted against him. He was not asked to submit his comments on the enquiry report. Thus, without there being any enquiry and without calling for any explanation on the enquiry report, straightaway a show cause notice of removal from service was issued against him and consequently, an order of removal dated 24 -02 -2015 was passed on him. He preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent and the appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, he filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of certiorari to quash the termination order dated 24 -02 -2015 and to reinstate him into service.

(3.)THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even though the petitioners have a good case of success even on merits, he would confine his arguments only to the proportionality of the punishment so as to enable them to obtain quick justice as they are deprived of their livelihood on a trivial charge of misconduct. Therefore, the learned counsel without stressing upon the point as to whether there was any justifiable reason for the absence of the petitioners in the two cases, urges this Court to dispose of the writ petitions only on the question of proportionality of punishment in the light of the established principles of law.