IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16061 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Mehdipatnam Depot, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.K.Prabhakar S/o A.Tiruvengala Swamy H.No.8.3.228/1280/507, Jawahar Nagar, Yousufguda. Hyderabad-45 2 Labour Court -1 Rep by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award dt:5.8.97 made in I.D.No.86/94, Labour Court-I,A.P.Hyderabad, published on 20.9.97, directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service with back wages from the date of the petition and with continuity of service and other benefits, and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. Counsel for the Petitioner : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, through its Depot Manager, Mehdipatnam Depot, challenging the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, dated 5th August 1997, in I.D.No.86 of 1994. 2. By the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has ordered for reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service by granting the benefit of continuity of service and backwages from the date of filing of the petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Necessary facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under: Respondent No.1 is working as a Conductor in the petitioner/Corporation and is attached to Mehdipatnam Depot. On 10.07.1993, while he was on duty on the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-2191 on route No.65-S, a check was exercised at stage No.5, and the checking officials have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Based on the report submitted by the checking officer to the Depot Manager, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 1st respondent and he was charge sheeted vide charge sheet, dated 19.07.1993, with the following four charges : “1. For having failed to complete issues even after crossed one fare stage which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having reissued a ticket bearing No.024/038399 of Rs.1.00 to a passenger with advance punch on stage No.5 who boarded in your bus at Noble Talkies and bund for Bhoiguda Kaman, ex.stages 6/5 to 5/4. The above said ticket already comes in accounted at stage No.9 (Shaikpet) which is valid upto Nanalnagar stage No.7 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having reissued a ticket bearing No.023/751615 of Rs.0.75 to a passenger with advance punch on stage No.5 who boarded in your bus at Noble Talkies and alighting at Seetharambagh ex.stage No.6/5 to 5. The ticket already comes in accounted at stage 9 Shaikpet valid upto Viratnagar ex.stages 9 to 8 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. For having failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a chargeable children aged about 7 years found traveling without ticket from Mehdipatnam to M.Market ex.stages 6 to 3 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 4. The 1st respondent has filed his explanation, denying the aforesaid charges. Thereafter, a regular departmental inquiry was conducted by giving opportunity to the 1st respondent. The inquiry officer, on completion of inquiry, has submitted his report, by recording a finding that the 1st respondent was guilty of all the charges levelled against him. On receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority, by issuing a show cause notice and considering the explanation filed by the 1st respondent, has passed an order of removal, dated 18.10.1993. Against the said order of removal, the 1st respondent has filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Even the appellate authority has rejected the appeal, by an order dated 8th March 1994, confirming the order of disciplinary authority. The 1st respondent has further carried the matter by way of review, before the Regional Manager, who has also rejected the review petition, by his order, dated 27.06.1994, confirming the order of removal. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/workman has raised an industrial dispute before Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, by impugned award, has recorded a finding that the domestic inquiry conducted in disciplinary proceedings was valid, but however, it has ordered for reinstatement of 1st respondent/workman with continuity of service and backwages from the date of filing of application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, mainly on the ground that with reference to the charges covered under charge Nos.1, 3 and 4, no reference is made by the checking officer, to the Depot Manager. 5. Heard learned Standing counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, and also perused the original record of the Tribunal. 6. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation that the Tribunal has ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages without recording any valid reasons. It is submitted that once the departmental proceedings are initiated, and the inquiry officer has found that the charges framed in the charge sheet are proved, it is not open for the Tribunal to disbelieve the charges, only on the ground that no reference is made by the checking officer in his report submitted to the Depot Manager, with regard to such violations. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/workman submits that in this case, no proper opportunity was given to the delinquent/employee in the inquiry proceedings, and further, as the charges were not based on any material, the Tribunal has rightly interfered with the order of removal and granted the relief. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that while recording a finding that the domestic inquiry is conducted as per the procedure, mainly, the Tribunal has ordered for reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service on the ground that such violations are not noted in the charge memo. The charge memo, which was issued to the 1st respondent/workman before issuance of charge sheet in the disciplinary proceedings, dated 19.07.1993, is marked before the Tribunal as Ex.M-3. I have perused the copy of the charge memo, and it mentions about the violations covered by Charge Nos.1, 3 and 4. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that on Exs.M-15 and 17, there are no signatures of Depot Manager. Ex.M-15 is the special report, dated 19.07.1993, submitted by the checking officials, and Ex.M-17 is a portion of the Check Sheet showing the signature of the 1st respondent/workman. When the report was submitted by the checking officials to the Depot Manager, merely because the initials are not made by the Depot Manager on receipt of such report, that by itself, cannot constitute the ground to interfere with the final orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings. Pursuant to inspection and the report submitted by the checking officials, a regular inquiry was conducted by framing four charges against the 1st respondent/workman, and when the inquiry officer has conducted the inquiry and recorded his findings that the charges are proved, merely on the ground that there are no signatures of the Depot Manager on the report submitted by the checking officials, and on the ground that such violations are not mentioned in the charge memo, the Tribunal has grossly erred in granting the relief without going into the correctness or otherwise of the findings on the charges framed under Charge Nos.1, 3 and 4. In normal course, the matter is to be remitted back for fresh consideration, but in this case, it is to be noted that the order of removal was passed as early as on 18.10.1993 and this matter is pending before one forum or the other for the last about 16 years. This writ petition is also filed in this Court in the year 1998, and at the stage of admission, interim orders are granted only to the extent of continuity of service and backwages, and it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation that pursuant to the award, the 1st respondent is already reinstated into service. 8. Taking the above aspects into consideration, and to put a quietus to the long pending litigation, this Court is of the view that modifying the relief granted by the Tribunal would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal to the extent of granting backwages, is set aside, and the award to the extent of reinstatement and continuity of service, is confirmed. It is also made clear that this continuity of service shall be only for the benefit of calculating the retiral benefits. 9. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th February 2009. ajr