THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.613 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Nagar Kurnool D of APSRTC in the year 1987. On 13.12.1998, himself and another D were entrusted with the duty to operate special service bet Hanamkonda and Medaram Jathara. On the way, in route bet Hanamkonda and Medaram Jathara, an accident took place on acco collision with the lorry. The local officials of the Corporation intervened the owner of the lorry agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- tow compensation for damage that was caused to the bus. The petitione required to collect the amount and remit the same to the Nagar Ku Depot. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17.08.1998 all that the petitioner collected the amount from the lorry driver, but did not the same in the Depot. On receiving the explanation submitted b petitioner, by the Depot Manager, a departmental enquiry was ordered. Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 25.11.1998, holding that the c against the petitioner was proved. Taking the same into account, the D Manager passed an order, dated 05.03.1999, removing the petitioner service. After exhausting departmental remedies, the petitioner approa the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.199 of 2000 before the Labour Co Hyderabad. An award, dated 17.04.2003, was passed dismissing the Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, an K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The charge against the petitioner was to the effect that he di remit a sum of Rs.4,000/- collected from the owner of a lorry towards the of repair to the bus, which reads as under: “For having failed to remit the amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) towards the cost of damages to the vehicle No.AP10Z 4334 which was handed over to you by the AME(T)/WL duly collecting from the Private Lorry Driver on 13.02.1998, the same amount of Rs.4,000/- misappropriated, which constitute misconduct under Reg.28(x) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation and domestic enquiry conducted. An elaborate report was submitted to the effect that the c against the petitioner was proved. An order of removal ensued an same was upheld by the Labour Court. Though the allegation in the charge sheet is that the peti collected a sum of Rs.4,000/-, the petitioner submits that he received Rs.2,500/- from the owner of the lorry and the balance was not recov Assuming that the petitioner recovered only Rs.2,500/-, he was obligation to remit the same soon after he reached Nagar Kurnool. The explanation offered by the petitioner is that when he made an attem remit the amount, the Depot Clerk refused to receive it. Even if that is he ought to have taken the matter to the notice of his superior officials ultimately, to the Depot Manager. Till charge sheet was issued in the 1998, no steps were taken. For the period exceeding six months petitioner did not even feel the necessity of remitting the amount int depot, much less did he make efforts to recover the amount of Rs.1,500/ It is with the efforts of the higher officials of the Corporation tha owner of the lorry agreed to pay the amount, which obviously helpe Corporation to meet the expenditure in causing repairs to the bus. T was absolutely no justification on the part of the petitioner in failing to the amount received by him from the owner of the lorry with the depot a failing to recover the balance amount from the owner of the lorry. This Court does not find any defect or infirmity in the award pass the Labour Court or the order passed by the Depot Manager. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if there e any need in the Depot to appoint Drivers, the case of the petitioner sh considered for appointment afresh, in case he remits the amou Rs.4,000/- duly taking into account his service as Driver in the depot fo decade. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:30.09.2010 VGB