THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WA No. 1120 of 2011 Between The Depot Manager v V.Devadatha Prasad and another THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WA No.1120 of 2011 Common order : ( Per Sri GM, J ) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the Corporation against the order of the learned single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.17808 of 2005. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition. The petitioner got appointed as Conductor in the Respondnet-Corporation in the year 1985. Since he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and after completing all the formalities, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 25-4-2000. Aggrieved by the same, he filed appeal and revision and both were dismissed. The petitioner therefore raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act. After detailed consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted was just and valid and that there is any amount of evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in grave misconduct and thus he does not deserve any relief to be granted. Hence, he filed Writ Petition. Learned Single Judge though held that the Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was proper and valid and that the charges are grave in nature, however, since the petitioner had put in 15 years of service therefore it ought not to have dismissed the whole application without properly exercising the discretion vested in it under section 11-A of the I.D.Act and therefore ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service without continuity of service but without backwages. It is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that the charges against the petitioner are proved and the same are grave in nature and therefore no relief was warranted to the petitioner- employee. Normally, this Court would not have order for reinstatement when there is any amount of evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in grave misconduct. However, considering the fact that the petitioner had put in 15 years of service and he had left with 2 years of service only, to meet the ends of justice, the order of the learned single Judge is modified ordering fresh appointment of the petitioner and his past service shall be counted for terminal benefits only. Subject to above directions, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date : 28-12-2011 Kk/ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WA No. 1120 of 2011 28-12-2011