IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17319 OF 2001 Date:02-12-2010 Between:- The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. .. Petitioner And The Labour Court and another .. Respondents ORDER:- The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C), through its Depot Manager, Warangal-II, challenges the Award dated 09-08-2000 passed by the Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.185 of 1996. By the said Award, the Labour Court directed the A.P.S.R.T.C to reinstate the second respondent herein as a Conductor with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of filing of the I.D. while substituting the punishment of removal from service with the reduced punishment of imposition of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and directing that the period of suspension undergone by the second respondent herein should not be counted for any purpose. 2. This Court by order dated 20-08-2001, taking note of the fact that the second respondent was reinstated in service on 12-12-2000, granted interim suspension of the Award under challenge. 3. The second respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the service of A.P.S.R.T.C on 18-02-1976. While he was conducting a bus service on 01-10-1995, a check was made and under charge sheet dated 13-10-1995 one single charge was framed against him with regard to alterations in the S.R. After the second respondent submitted his reply on 25-10-1995, the A.P.S.R.T.C instituted an enquiry into the matter. By report dated 05-02-1996, the enquiry officer returned a finding of guilt against the second respondent. The A.P.S.R.T.C issued show cause notice dated 19-02-1996 thereupon. After the second respondent submitted his explanation on 01-03-1996, the A.P.S.R.T.C issued a fresh charge sheet dated 12-03-1996 with as many as twelve charges in connection with the alleged alteration of S.Rs by the second respondent during the period June 1995 to September, 1995. After conducting a fresh enquiry into these charges which resulted in the report dated 17-05-1996, holding the second respondent guilty of all the charges, the A.P.S.R.T.C removed the second respondent from service under proceedings dated 24-07-1996. He thereupon invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. 4. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the second respondent under the charge sheet dated 13-10-1995 did not amount to misconduct. This finding was supported by the fact that all the passengers in the bus were found in possession of valid tickets during the check. The mistake committed by the second respondent was attributable to the dim lighting in the bus and therefore, at best, amounted to negligence. In so far as the second charge sheet was concerned, the Labour Court rightly held against the A.P.S.R.T.C. on the ground that it was issued only after the explanation was submitted by the second respondent on 01-03-1996. Further, the allegations thereunder related to the period June 1995 to September 1995. Therefore, the delay on the part of the A.P.S.R.T.C in initiating disciplinary proceedings in connection therewith had to be held against it. The documents on the basis of which the second charge sheet was issued were also in the sole custody of the A.P.S.R.T.C and as pointed out by the Labour Court, it could not be ruled out that the said alterations were fabricated during that time. The reasoning of the Labour Court in this regard is therefore cogent, valid and unassailable on facts. 5. The Labour Court further protected the interests of the A.P.S.R.T.C by imposing the reduced punishment of withholding of an increment with cumulative effect upon the second respondent for his negligence in maintaining the S.R. As the second respondent specifically averred in his claim petition filed under Section 2-A(2) that he could not secure alternative employment being over aged, the burden was upon the A.P.S.R.T.C to prove to the contrary. No such steps were however taken. In that view of the matter, the award of 50% back wages from the date of filing of the I.D. cannot be found fault with. 6. Viewed from any angle, the Award of the Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No.185 of 1996 does not warrant interference by this court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 2nd December 2010. AMD