THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 26070 of 2006 ORDER: The 1st respondent was appointed as Helper in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’), in the year 1995. The Board has since been reorganized, and the petitioners succeeded to it, for the generation activity. An order was passed on 08-06-1998, dismissing the 1st respondent from service, on the ground that he impersonated an individual by name, G. Narsi Reddy, and secured employment. The 1st respondent filed I.D.No.10 of 2004 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. An award was passed on 20- 04-2006, setting aside the order of dismissal dated 08-06-1998, and directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent as helper on daily wages, with continuity of service, but without back wages and attendant benefits. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. A charge-sheet was served upon the 1st respondent, alleging that he secured employment in the name of G. Venkat Reddy, though he actually, Narsi Reddy. He denied the charge and submitted his explanation. He was also prosecuted in C.C.No.215 of 1994 in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nalgonda, and the same has ended in acquittal. In the domestic enquiry, the charge was held proved, and he was dismissed from service. The Labour Court framed two points for its consideration, viz., 1. Whether the petitioner impersonate the name of G. Venkat Reddy and secured employment in the department as helper by styling himself as G. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Pulla Reddy and cheated the department ? 2. Whether the dismissal order against the petitioner on 8-6-98 is valid and if not to what relief the petitioner is entitled to ? The 1st respondent deposed as WW-1 and filed Exs.W-1 to W-10. On behalf of the petitioners, MW-1 was examined and Exs.M-1 to M-3 were filed. The Labour Court recorded a specific finding to the effect that the petitioners failed to prove the charge. A charge, alleging impersonation, can be proved only by examining the actual person, who is said to have been impersonated. No such effort was made. It appears that the 1st respondent is also known as Narsi Reddy in the village, and that was treated as basis for alleging that he impersonated as Venkat Reddy. When the so-called Venkat Reddy was not examined, the basis of charge disappears. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01-10-2010. KO