THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 13851 of 2006 Oral order: The petitioner was appointed as Mechanic Grade-II on 21.07.1990. While working as such, he was issued charge sheet dated 05.07.2002 alleging that on 04.07.2002, while performing his duties, he had drawn items i.e., (1) Slack adjuster (CO) E1, (2) Wiper Pipes set (new) E1 (3 pieces) from the Stores for fitting to the vehicle bearing No. AP 10 Z 8942, but failed to fix the same to the vehicle and concealed the said items in his hand bag while leaving from the Depot. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges leveled against him. The Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry into the charges, held the charges proved. Based on the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent, namely Depot Manager, issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto. However, vide proceedings dated 27.11.2002, the 2nd respondent removed the petitioner from service. The appeal and review petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order of removal, were dismissed. Assailing the order of removal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 126 of 2003 on the file of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The Labour Court, vide the award dated 03.11.2004, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service afresh treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’. Assailing the award of the Labour Court, insofar as denying the benefit of continuity of service, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court having directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, committed error in not granting the benefit of continuity of service. He submitted that the punishment of denial of continuity of service, is disproportionate to gravity of the charges leveled, and prayed that the award of the Labour Court to the extent of denying continuity of service, be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC contended that the order passed by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service, was confirmed in appeal and review petition, and even though the Labour Court upheld the enquiry report, which reported that the charges against the petitioner are proved, yet taking a lenient view had modified the order of removal to that of reinstatement of the petitioner into service afresh, by denying him the benefit of continuity of service, and the said award, passed by the Labour Court, can in no manner, be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The parameters and scope of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari are very limited. I n Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai[1], the apex Court held as follows: Certiorari, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. Within the parameters, as laid down by the apex Court, in the above judgment, the impugned award of the Labour Court has to be judged. The petitioner was charge sheeted on the ground that he having drawn slack adjuster, wiper pipe set and two bill books from the Stores for fixing to the vehicle, did not fix the same and concealed the same in his hand bag. The charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved in the enquiry. Though the enquiry officer held that the charges against the petitioner are proved, the Labour Court, upon considering the evidence placed before it, came to the conclusion that the respondents failed to clear the contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, and held that there is a doubt with regard to the seizure of the material from the possession of the petitioner. Holding so, the Labour Court feeling that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate and a lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice, passed the impugned award directing the respondents- Corporation to reinstate the petitioner afresh treating the suspension period as not on duty, and no exception can be taken thereto. In the above view of the matter, I find no infirmity or perversity in the award passed by the Labour Court, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 21st July, 2006. KSR [1] AIR 2003 SC 3044=2003AIR SCW3872