IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3948 of 2003 Between: 1. A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director Mushirabad, Hyderabad 2. The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. BHEL Depot. Medak District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 P. Srinivas S/o. Balakrishna R/o. H.No. 3-9-23, RTC Colony, Chandanagar, Near Huda Police Station, Ranga Reddy District - 500 050 2 The Labour Court II. Rep. by its Presiding Officer Hyderabad .....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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of a Writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award dated 2-11-2002 made in I.D.No. 129/99, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad Published on 13-12-2002 setting aside the order of removal dated 25-6-1999 and directing reinstatement of 1st respondent into service with continuity of service, full back wages and other attendant beneﬁts; and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The A.P.S.R.T.C. (Corporation) is the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein is the workman. The Corporation has ﬁled this writ petition seeking to call for the records, by way of Writ of Certiorari, relating to the impugned award dated 02-11-2002 made in I.D. No.129 of 1999 by the Labour Court- II, Hyderabad, published on 25-06-1999, wherein it directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, with full back wages and other attendant benefits, and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. The case of the workman was that he was appointed as Conductor on 29-12-1988 on daily wage basis and subsequently his services were regularised with eﬀect from 10-11-1989. The workman admittedly worked continuously as Conductor in the Corporation for a period of ten years. While so, a petition was received by the Corporation against the workman on 06-05-1998 alleging that the workman secured employment as Conductor on producing of bogus SSC certificate. On the basis of the said petition, the Corporation has served a charge sheet on the workman dated 31-10-1998. After conducting enquiry into the charges, he was removed from service on 25-06-1999. Aggrieved by the same, workman preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, appellate authority, and the same was rejected. Assailing the same, workman raised a dispute in I.D. No.129 of 1999 and that was allowed by the Court below setting aside the order of removal of the workman and the Corporation was directed to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has filed the present writ petition. Learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner, Corporation, submits that the Court below committed an error in directing the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman, 1st respondent herein, submits that after proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Court below has rightly found that the charges leveled against him were not proved. Therefore, the Court below has rightly directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages and the order of the Court below does not suﬀer from any legal inﬁrmity. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, conﬁrming the order of the Court below. Admittedly, the workman was appointed in the Corporation as Conductor and he was continuously working for the last ten years. While so, a petition was received by the Corporation against the workman that at the time of interview he produced a bogus SSC certiﬁcate. On the basis of the said petition, the Corporation has issued a charge sheet stating that for having produced a bogus SSC marks memorandum for selection to the post of Conductor and secured employment in the Corporation, which constitutes misconduct under the Regulation 28(x) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations. Though the workman requested the Corporation to provide a copy of the petition, received by the Corporation against him, the same was not provided to him stating that it is conﬁdential. Thereafter, he submitted his explanation dated 03-04-1999 asserting that he never produced any bogus certiﬁcate to secure employment and he denied the charge framed against him. Thereafter, appointing the Chief Inspector, BHEL, as Enquiry Oﬃcer, conducted domestic enquiry and during the course of domestic enquiry, the workman alone was examined as witness wherein he stated that he joined in the Corporation as Conductor on 31-12-1988 and he placed all the original certiﬁcates before the Selection Committee such as, educational, physical ﬁtness and etc., and the same are with the Corporation. After verifying and satisﬁed with the said certiﬁcates only, the Selection Committee appointed him as Conductor. Therefore, his contention is that he never submitted any bogus certiﬁcate and the alleged complaint received by the Corporation against him is false. Admittedly, the Enquiry Oﬃcer did not examine any other witness but however, he gave enquiry report, on the basis of an endorsement alleged to have been made by the Additional Joint Secretary to the Commissioner for Government Examination, A.P. Hyderabad, that the SSC certiﬁcate produced by the workman is a bogus. Based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, the Corporation has issued removal order of the workman. It is obvious from the record that an alleged endorsement made by the Additional Secretary to the Commissioner for Government Examination was not examined and the opportunity of cross-examining the Additional Secretary was not given to the workman, more so, the said endorsement was not tagged with any covering letter. Except the alleged endorsement of the Additional Joint Secretary, which did not contain any date or seal of the oﬃcer, no evidence is procured to establish the charge framed against the workman. Except ﬂimsy evidence of endorsement nothing has been placed before the Court showing that the workman has produced a bogus certiﬁcate and he was guilty of any charges previously. In the absence of any proper enquiry and collecting evidence, it can be said that the charge leveled against the workman was not proved, in such an event, the workman is not at all liable for punishment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side in the absence of proving the alleged charge, this Court is of the opinion that the workman is entitled to reinstatement into service, as directed by the Court below. Therefore, the Court below has rightly set aside the order of removal and directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Accordingly, the order dated 02-11-2002 made in I.D. No.129 of 1999 by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad is conﬁrmed and the writ petition is dismissed but under the circumstances no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 15-10-2008 LSK