IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21408 of 1999 Between: J.Srinivasa Rao, S/o J.Hanumantha Rao, R/o 1-4-47/B, Rajendranagar, New Town, mahabubnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Labour Court-III, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Bldg., 4th Flr, M.J.Road, Hyd-1. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar Depot., Mahabubnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 1st respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the award passed by the 1ast respondent in ID No.362/92 (Old No.4/90), dt.15-6-94, published on 30-9-94, in so far as denying continuity of Service, illegal, unjust, contrary to law and preserve. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21408 OF 1999 ORDER: The petitioner, a conductor in the AP State Road Transport Corporation, ﬁled this writ petition questioning the award, dated 15.6.1994 passed by the 1st respondent- Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.362 of 1992. The petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent-corporation as conductor on 22.4.1985. While he was conducting the bus on the route from Gulbarga to Mahabubnagar on 26.12.1986, a check was exercised by the checking oﬃcials at stage No.16 viz., Rawalpally. Having noticed some ticket and cash irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was charge sheeted for the following charges: 1. “For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and start’, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations 1963.” 2. “For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to ﬁve passengers, who were found alighting without tickets at Rawalpally, stage No.16, having boarded the bus at Kastoor Palli, stage No.17, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi)(a) of APS RTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. “For having failed to close the tray numbers of all denominations against stage No.16, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxxii) of APS RTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” In response to the said charges referred to above, the petitioner ﬁled an explanation stating that among ﬁve passengers, who were found without possession of tickets, one of them tendered him a torn currency note of Rs.50/- for issuing the tickets to all of them and as such, he could not accept the same. It is stated that they could not understand his language and in the meanwhile, in view of the pressure exerted by other passengers, who were travelling to Mahaboobnagar, the bus started and in the meanwhile, at the very next stage, checking officials inspected the bus. The enquiry oﬃcer in his proceedings found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, based on which, an order of removal, dated 28.5.1987 was passed. The said order of removal was challenged by the petitioner by way of an application ﬁled under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in I.D.No.362 of 1992 before the Tribunal. No further oral evidence was let in on his behalf. But, on behalf of the Management, documents under Exs.M1 to M16 were marked. The Tribunal by an order, dated 20.4.1993, upheld the domestic enquiry. But, however, on further examination of the evidence let in by the Corporation with consent, the Tribunal also recorded a ﬁnding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. However, taking into account the gravity of the charges and the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner, in exercise of power under section 11A of the Act, while considering the quantum of punishment, the Tribunal was of the view that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. While recording such a ﬁnding, the Tribunal set aside the order of removal and directed to reinstate the petitioner in the same post as a fresh appointment, without granting any other beneﬁts i.e., back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. In the present writ petition, it is submitted by Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that having regard to the gravity of the charges, the Tribunal below ought to have granted atleast the beneﬁt of continuity of service instead of order of fresh appointment. It is submitted that it is not a case where an allegation of misappropriation is alleged and undisputedly, the petitioner did not collect the fare from the passengers and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have given the beneﬁt of past service and attendant benefits. On the other hand, it is submitted by Smt. B.G. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation that in this case, though the charges were proved, the Tribunal exercised the power under Section 11A of the Act and substituted the punishment of removal with lesser punishment by awarding reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh candidate and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the award. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has passed the award on 15.6.1994 and the petitioner approached this Court by ﬁling this writ petition in the month of October, 1999. In this case, the enquiry oﬃcer as well as the Tribunal also, while appreciating the evidence on record, categorically found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The only question is with regard to the quantum of punishment as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though the Tribunal recorded the ﬁnding that the charges were proved against the petitioner, but however, taking into account the quantum of amount involved and also the gravity of the charges, the Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 11 A of the Act substituted the punishment of removal with lesser punishment. Having regard to the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal, it is not a case where it can be said that the Tribunal has not exercised its power under section 11A of the Act in a proper perspective and the seriousness of the charges and the punishment imposed were also examined by the Tribunal and there are no compelling reasons to interfere with such ﬁndings as well as the quantum of punishment substituted by the Tribunal. It is also to be noticed as rightly argued by the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation that the award was passed on 15.6.1994 and the writ petition is ﬁled nearly four years after passing the award. It is well settled that in a petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the aﬀected party is not diligent about his rights and if there is no satisfactory explanation as to the delay and laches, the party is not entitled for any relief. Under the above said ground, it is also not a case where the award should be interfered with. I do not ﬁnd any merits, which would warrant interference and the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice R. Subhash Reddy Dated: 10.9.2008 Nn. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21408 OF 1999 10.9.2008