THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2260 OF 2008 DT.29.12.2010 Between: N.Bhoomaiah, S/o.Mallaiah ……..Petitioner Vs. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Jagtial Depot, Karimnagar District and another ……..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2260 of 2008 O R D E R: The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D.No.92 of 2005 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Godavarikhani, assails the NIL award dated 22.09.2007 passed therein. The petitioner entered the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) as a conductor in the year 1979. While he was conducting the service on the route Jagtial to Oddyad on 28.11.2004, a check was made by the Assistant Manager(Traffic) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. and certain cash and ticketing irregularities were detected. Under charge memo dated 29.11.2004, four charges were framed against the petitioner: Charges: 1. “For having tried to close the tray numbers in the STAR document on seeing the checking officials while entering into your service for checking and having closed the ticket numbers of Rs.4/- deno., as 080 against stage No: 4 & 8, though the opening number on the tray is 721/580084 which means you have issued ticket numbers from 080 to 083 to the passengers, who have boarded your bus at stage No.3 and alighted at stage No: 4/5 and not accounted in the STAR document No: 014/522313, Dt:28.11.2004 and the same ticket numbers neither available in your tray nor in the bus, which constitutes mis-conduct under reg.28(x) & (xxv) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963”. 2. “For having closed the ticket No. of Rs.7/- deno., as only 56 i.e., two digit instead of 3 digits against stage No:5, though the opening number on your tray is 444/530567 and also closed the ticket numbers against stage No:2 as 56 clearly written the 3rd digit some figure which is invisible, which means you have issued the tickets from 554 to 556 of Rs.7/- deno., to the passengers, who boarded your bus at Jagtial and alighted at Kacharam and Venkatraopet, with an intention to reissue the tickets in the next trip, you have written only two digits in the star document instead of 3 digits, which shows your fraudulent motive, which constitutes mis-conduct under reg.28(x) & (xxv) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963”. 3. “For having found the following ticket No: 444/530556, 558 and 559 of Rs.7/- deno., which were confiscated from your hand by the checking officials which were not punched clearly and the remaining tickets were not confiscated as you have hidden the tickets some where, which were collected and kept by you, with a fraudulent motive to- reissue of the same, which constitutes mis-conduct under reg. 28(x) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963”. 4. “For having shown the No. of passengers less to the actual ticket issues in the star document, which constitutes mis- conduct under Reg.28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963”. After considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 03.12.2004, the A.P.S.R.T.C. initiated an enquiry into the matter. By report dated 20.01.2005, the enquiry officer found against the petitioner on all charges. After following the due procedure, the A.P.S.R.T.C. removed the petitioner from service under proceedings dated 03.03.2005. His appeal and thereafter, his review, having met with failure, the petitioner approached the labour Court by way of the subject I.D. under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour Court upon a thorough examination of the material on record found that there was no perversity in the findings of the enquiry officer warranting interference. Once the labour Court, being the court of first instance, did not find reason to interfere with the punishment imposed upon the petitioner on facts, the scope for judicial review by this Court is limited. The charges levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature as he was alleged to have committed misappropriation, a misconduct under regulation 28(X) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (conduct) Regulations Act, 1963. The detailed and well-reasoned award passed by the labour Court leaves no room to take a different view from that obtaining therein. In the absence of any procedural material irregularity or perversity in the findings, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. Dt.29.12.2010 Rns