IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18286 of 1999 Between: P.Surya Rao. S/o. Appa Rao. R/o. Bokka Veedhi, Kottakoyalachari, Vizianagram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. , Rep by its Managing Director, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vizianagaram District. 3 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., S.Kota, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.BALAJI FOR MR G.DASARADHARAMI REDDY Counsel for the respondents: MR C.APPAIAH SARMA The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside award dated 27-03-1997 passed in I.D.No.237 of 1993, whereby the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam declined to interfere with order dated 20-11-1992 passed by the Depot Manager, S.Kota, Vizianagaram District-respondent No.3 removing the petitioner from service and order dated 19-04-1993 passed by the Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vizianagaram District-respondent No.2 confirming the said order of removal. Heard Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel representing Sri G.Dasaradha Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.Appaiah Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was Conductor of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and faced disciplinary proceedings for his unauthorized absence for 4 different spells, namely; from 03-06-1992 to 08-06-1992; 24-06-1992 to 06-07-1992; 27-08-1992 to 14-09-1992 and 05-11-1992 to 20-11-1992. Three charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 14-09-1992. The Enquiry Officer held enquiry during which he examined and recorded the statements of the Deputy Superintendent (T) and the petitioner and submitted his report. On the basis of the report, respondent No.3 passed order dated 20-11-1992 removing the petitioner from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.2 by his order dated 19-04-1993. The petitioner raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”), which was disposed of by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam by award dated 27-03-1997 by rejecting the petitioner’s claim and declining to interfere with the above orders passed by respondents 2 and 3. At the hearing, Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that no detailed enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer based on such a summary enquiry ought not to have been relied on by respondent No.3 to impose the extreme punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. He further submitted that the penalty of removal from service is too disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court shows that the petitioner was examined in the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer by recording his statement on 14-09-1992. The petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence before the Labour Court and mark any documents in support of his plea that enquiry conducted by the domestic Tribunal was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice or by improper procedure. Though valuable opportunity was made available to the petitioner by the Labour Court, he failed to avail such an opportunity. Therefore, I do not find any ground to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the contention of the learned counsel that the punishment is too disproportionate, a perusal of the award of the Labour Court shows that on several earlier occasions, the petitioner was given punishments of deferment of increments for his unauthorized absence. The Labour Court relied upon Ex.M12 in this regard and the disciplinary authority relied upon the earlier punishments in imposing the punishment of removal from service. The law is well settled that though the past conduct is not relevant for the purpose of finding a workman guilty, it is nevertheless a relevant circumstance to decide on the quantum of punishment. The fact that the petitioner had earlier suffered minor punishments of deferment of increments for his unauthorized absence is not disputed. In this view of the matter, the plea of disproportionality of the punishment has no basis. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality in the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 20th November, 2008 vrn