petitioner as to why he should not be
2
removed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but
the 2nd respondent was not satisfied with ... leave for
the earlier years also to award the punishment of removal from
service. He submitted that the respondents could not have taken action
seeking
Writs of Mandamus declaring that the Show Cause Notices of
Removal from service issued by the 2nd respondent vide
Proceedings ... both the petitioners on
01.04.2022, proposing to impose the punishment of removal from
service even before expiry of stipulated time for submitting
petitioners' comments
seeking
Writs of Mandamus declaring that the Show Cause Notices of
Removal from service issued by the 2nd respondent vide
Proceedings ... both the petitioners on
01.04.2022, proposing to impose the punishment of removal from
service even before expiry of stipulated time for submitting
petitioners' comments
holding the employee as guilty of the charges,
the employee was removed from service. The employee preferred an
Appeal to the Chief Executive ... punishment of removal from service was set
aside and the employee was reinstated into service with continuity of
service and 50% back wages. Against this
joined in the said duty and worked till
his removal from service on 28.05.2020.
3. It is submitted that when the petitioner did not report ... learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was
removed from service just three (3) days prior to his retirement and the
entire
material on
record, this Court finds that the petitioner was removed from service
for the charge of unauthorised absence and the punishment of removal
from ... from service cannot be sustained and is
accordingly set aside. The APSRTC is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service with continuity of service
charges against the petitioner were proved. Accordingly, the
punishment of removal from service was confirmed by the Labour
Court, against which the petitioner has filed ... petitioner into service with continuity of service only for
retirement benefits. So far as wages for the period of removal to his
attaining
petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be
removed from service, which, according to the petitioner,
is clearly perverse and without application ... order of removal from
service to reinstatement into service without back wages. However,
the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement
period but it was not taken into account and petitioner was
removed from service by proceedings dated 04.11.1995. The petitioner
challenged the removal order ... petitioner did not receive the show cause notice of removal or order of
removal from service, the petitioner could have made an effort to join
period but it was not taken into account and petitioner was
removed from service by proceedings dated 04.11.1995. The petitioner
challenged the removal order ... petitioner did not receive the show cause notice of removal or order of
removal from service, the petitioner could have made an effort to join
