IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.15675 OF 2001 Between : The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram Depot. ... PETITIONER AND Due M.S.K.V.Sastry and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.15675 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the APSRTC, Bhimavaram Depot, questioning the award in I.D.No.209 of 1997, dated 16.09.2000, on the file of Labour Court, Guntur District. 2. The first respondent herein, who was working as a driver, having committed misconduct was suspended on 18.12.1986 and later, on the basis of charge sheet and enquiry, his basic pay was reduced by two increments cumulatively for a period of two years and the suspension period was not treated as on duty. 3. The said punishment was questioned by respondent No.1 before the Industrial Tribunal in the aforesaid I.D. The Industrial Tribunal, on consideration of evidence, came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner Corporation in the domestic enquiry was not sufficient to establish the charge. In other words, the Tribunal went into re-appreciation of the evidence and reached the conclusion that finding respondent No.1 as guilty is not sustainable and accordingly, the punishment was found not justified. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner Corporation. 4. Heard both the counsel. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation produced the record of the enquiry, which shows that the Enquiry Officer has discussed the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the enquiry, including the statements of the witnesses and came to the conclusion that both the charges were established. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to reconsider the said evidence and held that the Senior Traffic Inspector, who conducted the enquiry after the accident, is not competent to speak the manner of the accident, as he was not present, and ultimately came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the charge of rash and negligent driving against respondent No.1. The Tribunal however, ignored out the observations of the Senior Traffic Inspector that the skid marks available on the taar road, which shows the pressure of the breaks applied to stop the bus in question. The Tribunal also committed further error in going by the findings of the criminal Court, which acquitted respondent No.1 for the offence of rash and negligent driving in the said criminal case C.C.No.58 of 1987on the file of Second Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram and that was also taken as the circumstances to disprove the charge against respondent No.1 without appreciating difference in mode of proof in domestic enquiry and a criminal case. 6. It is well settled that the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and it cannot substitute its views recorded by the disciplinary authority in the enquiry, once the domestic enquiry is conducted in accordance with law. (See Usha Breco Mazdoor Singh V Usha Breco Ltd.[1]) 7. In view of the above decision, the conclusions of the labour Court clearly suffer from erroneous appreciation of evidence on record and are vitiated. The impugned award, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 8. Normally the matter is required to be remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for reconsideration. But keeping in view the fact that the punishment was imposed on respondent No.1 in the year 1987, and much time has passed so far, now it would be highly unjust and inequitable to remit the I.D. to the Industrial Tribunal for consideration afresh. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the award and modify the punishment imposed on respondent No.1 by the disciplinary authority. The punishment of ‘reduction of basic pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect’ shall stand modified to that of ‘reduction of back pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect’. While rest of the punishment, namely treating the period of suspension as not on duty and recovery of an amount of Rs.33.99 ps. towards cost of the damages to the bus remains unaltered. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J JANUARY 27, 2011 YVL [1] 2008 (5) SCC 554