IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7812 of 2000 Between: A.R.Prasad, S/o.RAmaiah, R/o. Adavimedulapally Village, Kamepally Mandal, Khammam District. Kodad Depot, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Rep. by Presiding Officer, Warangal. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Kodad, Nalgonda District. .....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 1st Respondent in I.D.No.181 of 1994, dated 20-1-1998, published on 28-3-1998, in so far as denying the continuity of service and back wages to the petitioner as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by a Conductor, working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, attached to Kodad Depot in Nalgonda District, challenging the validity of the award, dated 20th January 1998, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.181 of 1994. 2. On 20.07.1994, while the petitioner was on duty as a Conductor on the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-4321 on the route from Khammam to Mattapally, in transit, a check was exercised at Stage No.9/10 at Balajinagar. During the check, the checking officials have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Basing on the same, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge sheet with the following two charges : “1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘issue and start’ which constitutes mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 Clause (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having collected the fare and failed to issue tickets to three passengers who boarded your bus at Kodad and alighting at Balajinagar without tickets ex-stages 9 to 9/10 on 20.7.1994 which constitutes mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 Clause (vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” 3. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the above charge sheet, but however, having not satisfied with the same, the respondents have proceeded with the inquiry by appointing an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry, has recorded his findings, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the same, an order of removal was passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in I.D.No.181 of 1994, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. Before the Tribunal, no further evidence was let in. The Labour Court, by impugned award, while confirming the order of the disciplinary authority, has interfered with the punishment and ordered for appointment of petitioner as a fresh recruitee as a Conductor, without continuity of service and also without backwages. 4. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets after collecting the fare, the check had taken place, and that there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner to misappropriate the revenues of the Corporation. But in the domestic inquiry proceedings, a finding was recorded by the inquiry officer to the effect that the petitioner, having collected fare from the passengers, did not issue tickets to them. Since the petitioner did not let in any further evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has also recorded its findings to the same effect, and in this writ petition, this Court cannot interfere with such finding of fact recorded by both the inquiry officer and the Tribunal. In the inquiry proceedings, one of the checking officials was examined, who has stated that the petitioner/workman has failed to observe the rule of ‘issue and start’. It is also to be noted that at the time of check, statements were recorded from the ticketless passengers, who have stated that they have paid the requisite fare to the Conductor, but he did not issue tickets to them. In his explanation, the petitioner has merely stated that on noticing some private bus coming behind their bus, apprehending that passengers from the Corporation bus will get down and will catch the said private bus, he started the bus without completing the issuance of tickets. Such an explanation was rightly not believed by both the inquiry officer and the Tribunal. Inspite of the fact that from the proven misconduct of the petitioner, there is misappropriation of revenues of the Corporation, the Tribunal has taken a lenient view and ordered for appointment of petitioner as a fresh recruitee, and as such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to grant any further relief either for continuity of service or for backwages. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th March 2009. ajr