Judgment:
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioners herein are employed as Drivers in the Palakonda Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. The 2nd respondent herein issued an order dated 31-8-2005, directing recovery of various amounts from their salaries. The petitioners challenge the same.
2. It was alleged that on 3-8-2005, the petitioners have reported to duty, but have detained the respective vehicles, entrusted to them, without any reasonable cause. Such detention of the vehicles or, of refusal by the petitioners, to take the vehicles on the routes, is said to have resulted in cancellation of the services, which in turn, had caused huge loss to the Corporation, as well as inconvenience to the travelling public. A common show-cause notice dated 16-8-2005 was displayed in the Notice Board, through which, the petitioners were called upon to submit explanations, as to why the amounts indicated against their names, representing the loss of income, shall not be recovered from them. The petitioners, in turn, submitted individual representations, dated 20-8-2005, stating that the particulars as to when the buses have been taken out, and when they were returned to Depot etc., were not furnished in the notice. They have also requested the respondent to furnish the xerox copies of the log-sheets, so as to enable them to submit explanations. On receiving these letters, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order, confirming the proposed action, on the ground that the petitioners were permitted to peruse the records in the Depot, and despite the same, they have not availed the opportunity.
3. The petitioners contend that the action of the respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law. It is urged that the nature of allegations against individual petitioners is different, and it was impermissible for the respondents to deal with all the cases through common show cause notice, that too, without serving it upon the petitioners, as provided for under the relevant Service Rules.
4. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit and an additional counter-affidavit. It is pleaded that all the petitioners have resorted to a concerted act of detaining the Buses. The strike notice that preceded the action of the petitioners, with certain demands; was referred to. It was contended that, inasmuch as a strike-like situation emerged and, since the nature of allegations against all the petitioners are common, the show cause notice was displayed in the Notice Board, and once the petitioners have noticed it, they cannot have any further grievance, as to service of the same. It has also been urged that since the punishment was very megre in nature, the detailed procedure was not followed.
5. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law for more reasons than one. He contends that while in case of some of the petitioners the Buses were taken out and had to be returned on account of defects in the vehicles, in other cases, the vehicles were not taken out, on finding that the vehicles were not in road-worthy condition. Learned Counsel submits that the log-sheets of the corresponding vehicles, disclose that they have become worn-out, and despite the same, the petitioners were being required to run them, exposing themselves to several situations, such as accidents. Pointing out to Regulation 35 of APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, for short, 'the Regulations', he submits that there was absolutely no justification for the 2nd respondent in issuing a common show cause notice and, that too, displaying in the Notice Board. He also contends that when the petitioners made a specific request for furnishing certain information and documents, the 2nd respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order, without considering the request, and in that view of the matter, the principles of natural justice are violated.
6. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners acted in a concerted manner and brought about a strike-like situation, which resulted in cancellation of as many as 12 services. He contends that the nature of allegations against the petitioners is common, and in that view of the matter, a common show-cause notice was issued to all of them. Learned Counsel points out that once the petitioners have taken note of the notice and understood the purport thereof, the relevant provision dealing with the mode of service, is without basis. He also points out that instead of submitting the explanations, the petitioners have resorted to dilatory tactics, and the 2nd respondent was left with no alternative, except to pass the impugned order. He places reliance upon an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 19003 of 2000, dated 25-1-2002.
7. The 2nd respondent displayed a notice dated 16-8-2005 in the Notice Board of the Depot. The petitioners were alleged to have intentionally detained the Buses, without any reasonable cause. The notice was silent, as to whether all the petitioners have refused to take out the Buses from the Depot, or whether some of them have taken out them, but returned by travelling up to some distance. During the course of hearing, it had emerged that in some cases, the Buses were driven up to some distances, and were brought back, on finding that they developed defects. In other cases, it is stated that the Buses were not taken out, at all. Therefore, the acts or omissions on the part of the petitioners varied from person to person. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent was under obligation to issue individual show-cause notices to the petitioners.
8. Further, the Regulations prescribe the procedure for effecting service of notices on the respective employees. Regulation 35 mandates that any communication, notice or order, addressed to an employee, shall be served personally, on him, by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of such communication, notice or order. Sending such communication by registered post with acknowledgement due is indicated as an alternative, when personal service is found not practicable. Displaying a communication, notice or order, in the Notice Board of the office, for a period of not less than one week, is provided for, as a last resort, if the other modes of service have become impossible. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent has taken recourse to the last resort, without exhausting the other modes. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent in this regard, cannot be sustained.
9. On coming to know that a notice was displayed in the Notice Board, requiring their explanations, the petitioners submitted representations, requesting the 2nd respondent to furnish the copies of log-sheets. This request was not acceded to, and the 2nd respondent took the stand that the petitioners can peruse the records in the office. The record of this case does not disclose that any written communication was sent to the petitioners, individually, or collectively, rejecting their request to furnish the copies, much less, any reasons were stated, for such rejection. Straightaway the impugned order was passed. The justification pleaded in the counter-affidavit and the additional counter-affidavit, that, since no other disciplinary action was initiated, in addition to recovery of loss, the prescribed procedure was not complied with; cannot be accepted.
10. Learned Standing Counsel made an effort to invoke the principle to the effect that, where an action is taken against persons en masse, issuance of individual notices can be dispensed with. He submits that law recognized such practice, where the group, as a whole, irrespective of the nature and extent of the involvement of individuals, is dealt with, such as results of a batch or class of students being cancelled, on the ground of mass-copying. It has to be noted that, in such cases, there may be students, who have honestly and sincerely answered the questions, and there may be, those who have resorted to malpractices. As long as the distinction is not made out, a common action is sustained in law. However, where, a classification is made out in the same group, such a facility cannot be extended. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent did not initiate proceedings or impose penalties on all the Drivers, employed with it. Out of a large number of Drivers, it has picked up 12 and initiated proceedings. It is not in dispute that the acts and omissions, attributed to individual petitioners, are in, themselves, different. Therefore, the initiation of common proceedings and passing orders against the petitioners was impermissible.
11. In W.P. No. 19003 of 2000, the question, as to whether the individual employees are entitled to be issued separate notices; did not arise for consideration at all. Though it was also a case of recovery of amounts from Drivers, on account of their abstention from duty, the writ petition was dismissed, mainly on the ground that the order challenged therein, had worked itself out. Further, the petitioner therein was Employees' Union, and not the individual employees. Hence, the order passed in that writ petition, does not apply to the facts of this case.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. Inasmuch as the petitioners have already token note of the allegations made against them, it is not necessary to require the 2nd respondent to issue fresh notices. The petitioners have already submitted representations with a request to furnish the copies of log-sheets etc. The 2nd respondent has to deal with such applications, either by acceding to the request, or by communicating the reasons for non-compliance thereof, in writing. On receiving a communication in this regard, the petitioners shall be entitled to take further steps. It is only thereafter, that the respondent shall be entitled to pass orders.
13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.