THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.A.No. 1792 of 2005 Dated. 31–01-2011 Between: C.S. Narayana …Petitioner Vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Depot Manager, Picket, Secunderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.A.No. 1792 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR,J) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 02-08-2005 in W.P.No. 12356 of 1999. The appellant served as a Conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the APSRTC’) having entered into service in the year 1978. In respect of an event on 03-10-1996, after a due process of departmental inquiry, he was terminated from service by an order dated 14-02-1997. It was alleged in the departmental inquiry qua the charge sheet dated 11-10-1996 that he violated the Conduct rules by conducting the bus with specified cash and ticket irregularities: (a) Failing to observe the rule issue, close and start while performing the Picket-Degloor service on 03-10-1996; (b) having collected an amount of Rs.4-00 each from a batch of five passengers at the boarding point itself and failing to issue tickets to them; (c) having re- issued certain specified tickets; (d) for having re-issued certain specified denomination tickets instead of issuing tickets of the appropriate denominations and (e) for having interfered with the functions of checking officials and trying to influence them not to frame a case and charges. In the departmental inquiry, he was found guilty of all charges and an order of termination was passed. He preferred an appeal which was rejected on 29-03-1997 by the appellate authority. Aggrieved, he applied to the Labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 2-A (2)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad by the award dated 03-02-1999 in I.D.No. 44 of 1997 rejected the claim of the appellant for reinstatement while absolving him of the fifth charge. Before the Labour Court the appellant had conceded that there were no procedural irregularities in the departmental inquiry but contended that the finding of his guilt on the charges was perverse, based on perverse appreciation of evidence. This argument of perversity in the appreciation of evidence did not commend acceptance by the Labour Court except in respect of charge No.5. However having regard to the cumulative gravity of charge Nos. 1 to 4, the Labour Court concurred that the punishment of termination from service inflicted in the departmental inquiry was proportionate. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the writ petition. The learned single Judge on a cogent and careful consideration of the record of the case rejected the writ petition. Before the learned single Judge, the appellant relying on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in S. Pulla Reddy v. Depot Manager, APSRTC[1] contended that the checking officials failed to verify the cash in the cash-bag of the appellant at the time of spot inquiry. Such verification would have revealed that the charge of collecting fare and not issuing tickets was unfounded. The learned single Judge rightly rejected this contention as inapplicable in a writ petition, as disputed facts cannot be gone into by this Court. The petitioner did not contend either before the departmental inquiry authorities or before the Labour Court that there was a fundamental error of procedure which vitiated the departmental inquiry in view of the fact that there was no verification of the cash-bag which would have been an evidence relevant to the charge relating to collection of fare and not issuing tickets. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the concurrent findings as to the guilt of the appellant by the inquiry officer in the departmental inquiry, the appellate authority, the Labour Court and a learned single Judge and the concurrence on the punishment of termination from service inflicted by the departmental authority and affirmed by the learned Labour Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court, no case is made out for interference in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ___________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 31-01-2011 Pvks/* [1] 1997 (2) ALD 558