IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 720 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/10/2007 in WP NO : 5286 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Vulupu Vara Prasad, E.111405, Conductor, S/o.Narayana R/o.Giddalur, Prakasam District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Giddalur Depot, Prakasam District 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Ongole, Prakasam District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 720 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order passed in writ petition No.5286 of 2006, dated 29th October 2007, this appeal has been filed by a Conductor of respondent/APSRTC. 2. The appellant/Conductor was removed from service as most of the charges levelled against him had been proved. Against the order of removal passed by the employer, the appellant had approached the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After considering the facts of the case, the Labour Court, by an Award dated 4th November 2004, confirmed the order of removal. Being aggrieved by the Award, the aforestated writ petition was filed by the appellant. The said writ petition has also been rejected, and, therefore, this appeal has been filed. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the punishment is harsh. He has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o f L. Michael v. Johnson Pumps Ltd.[1]. He has further submitted that there was an amendment to Regulation 28 (vi) (a) of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Regulations and the said amendment had not been approved by the State of Andhra Pradesh though it was required to be approved as per the provisions of Section 45-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. In the circumstances, the order of removal could not have been passed. 4. We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, at length and have also considered the facts of the case. 5. So far as the judgment delivered in the case of L. Michael v. Johnson Pumps Ltd (1 supra) is concerned, in our opinion, that would not apply to the facts of the present case in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane[2], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that what is important is the confidence which the employer should have in the employee. If the said confidence is lost, the employee need not be continued in service by the employer. In the instant case also, it is the question of confidence which the respondent/Corporation should have in the appellant/Conductor. As the confidence has been lost on account of the proved misconduct, in our opinion, such an employee cannot be forced upon the employer. 6. So far as the amendment with regard to Regulation 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Regulations is concerned, formerly Clause 28 (vi) (a) read as under :- “Failure, without reasonable cause, on the part of a Conductor to issue any ticket and thereby …………..” (Emphasis added) From the above regulation, the words “without reasonable cause” have been deleted in the amended regulation. But according to the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, the said amendment has not been approved by the Government as required under Section 45-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. 7. In our opinion, there was utter failure on the part of the appellant in discharge of his duties. The plea taken by the appellant before the lower authorities was not at all found to be justifiable by any of the authorities. The submission before the lower authorities as well as before the Labour Court was that the appellant was sleeping because he was not well and he had vomited before issuance of tickets. The said facts were not proved and were not believed. Moreover, he had admitted irregularities committed by him in the matter of maintenance of record/issuance of tickets. 8. For the reasons recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the learned single Judge, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the order of removal is either improper or illegal. 9. Looking to the concurrent findings arrived at by all the lower authorities, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the said findings. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 24th July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J N.B: Furnish C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr TO 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Giddalur Depot, Prakasam District 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Ongole, Prakasam District [1] AIR 1975 SC 661 [2] (2005) 3 SCC 254