THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No :12250 of 2006 DATED:15-02-2011 Between: D.S.Reddy. … PETITIONER And The Honourable Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep.by its Presiding Officer, Warangal & 3 others. ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against the award, dated 28- 09-2004, made in I.D.No.139 of 2003 on the file of the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) to set aside the removal order passed on 28-09-2004 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with consequential benefits and for other reliefs, was dismissed. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a driver in the respondent corporation in the year, 1987 and was attached to Khammam depot. Later on, he was transferred to Manugur depot, Khammam District and he has been performing his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. While that being so, on 15-12-1998, while the petitioner was driving the bus of Manugur depot, the bus met with an accident at Thufranpet by another service bus driven by one Brahmam. Based on the said allegation, petitioner was issued with a charge sheet, dated 15.03.1999, with the following charge: “For having not followed the vehicle No.AP 10Z 1181 of Manugur depot to the service 19.00 hours from Manugur- Hyderabad on 15.12.1998 as follow driver,you are absconded from your duties from Sujathanagar due to which Sri M.Brahmam, E.326755, Driver of Manugur depot has driven the vehicle from Sujathanagar to Tufranpet (upto accident place) as a night service and caused this accident. This clearly speaks that you have absconded from your duties carelessly and caused the accident which constitutes misconduct under Reg.4 (iii) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963”. 3. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation, the same was not taken into consideration and an Enquiry Officer was appointed and a detailed enquiry was conducted. After completing all the formalities, petitioner was removed from service by order, dated 25-09-1993. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 3rd respondent-Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, which ended in dismissal. Therefore, petitioner filed a review petition before the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager, however, the Regional Manager took a lenient view of the matter and granted the relief of reinstatement afresh, however, his past service was directed to be considered only for the purpose of terminal benefits and no other relief was granted. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, and the learned Judge after detailed consideration of the entire material placed before the Court came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, as modified by the Regional Manager, does not call for interference and accordingly dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The review authority itself, by taking a lenient view reinstated him into service treating the past service for the purpose of terminal benefits and denying back wages, attendant benefits etc., The past conduct of the petitioner does not inspire the confidence of this Court to grant any further relief in his favour. Petitioner suffered the following punishments: 01.04.1989 I.D. for 3 months w.o.c.e. for the accident. 16.12.1989 Censured for C & T irregularities. 15.12.1991 Censured for unauthorized absence for duty. 11.05.1993 suspended for accident. 13.10.1993 Removed from service. 09.05.1995 Again reinstated. 17.01.1997 Rs.200/- re4covered towards damages. 30.07.1997 Censured for damages. 27.12.1997 warned for damages. 10.12.1997 Warned for damages. 18.12.1998 Censured for damages. 15.03.1999 suspended for accident. 25.10.1999 removed from service. 20.01.2001 Reinstated by RM: KMM. 08-07-2002 Censured for damages. 08.07.2002 Censured for damages. 01.12.2003 Censured for desertion of duty. 12.01.2004 Censured for C & T.I. 5. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has rightly refused to interfere with the removal order passed by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, as modified by the Regional Manager. The Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU,J 15th February, 2011. Tsy