HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Appeal No.574 of 2007 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Parkal Bus Depot, Warangal District. … Appellant And P. Devendar Reddy and two others … Respondents ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the appellant: Smt.P. Rajani Counsel for respondent No.1: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao for Shri M. Surender Rao July 16, 2007 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ This appeal is directed against order dated 11.4.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11641 of 1998 whereby he set aside the award passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in I.D.No.45 of 1994 and ordered re-appointment of respondent No.1 – P. Devendar Reddy. Respondent No.1 was appointed as Conductor in Warangal Depot (Warangal District) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) in 1990. After sometime, he was transferred to Parkal Depot of the Corporation. On 14.5.1993, bus No.AP-9Z-656, which was plying on Parkal to Gaddamutharam route, was checked by the checking officials of the Corporation at Stage No.9. The checking party discovered that the Conductor (respondent No.1 herein) had committed cash and ticket irregularities. On the report of the checking party, an enquiry was instituted against respondent No.1 on the following charges: Charges: 1. For having violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’. 2. Three passengers (Adults -1 chargeable child) boarded the bus at Challagariga and bound for Garimillapally on Stages 5 to 11. You have collected the requisite fare amount of Rs.5.25 per adult and Rs.2.75 per child totally Rs.13.25 from them at their boarding stage itself, but issued three tickets of Rs.2-00 denomination bearing Nos.089/869050 to 052 which were already sold and accounted for in the SR. at Stage No.1 in 19-35 hrs. trip in spite of collecting the requisite fare amount from them at their boarding stage itself, which amounts to misconduct under Reg.No.28 (xiii) and (xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963. 3. For having failed to close the try number of all the denominations against the Stage Nos.6 to 9. 4. For having instigated the passengers and created trouble for not giving the passengers statement. 5. For having used unparliamentary language against the TTIs and insulted them before the passengers; and 6. For having refused to acknowledge the receipt of Charge memo on the spot. The enquiry officer submitted report with the findings that all the charges have been proved against the delinquent. The Depot Manager accepted the enquiry report and passed order whereby respondent No.1 was removed from service. The latter challenged the same by filing an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), as amended by Andhra Pradesh Act No.32 of 1987. He pleaded that the enquiry held against him was not fair; that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not based on correct appreciation of evidence and that the punishment is wholly arbitrary and disproportionate to the misconduct found proved. In the counter filed by the appellants, it was averred that the workman had been removed because he was found guilty of cash and ticket irregularities and abusing the members of the checking party. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal framed the following issues: Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given fair and reasonable opportunity during the domestic enquiry and if so whether the domestic enquiry is valid? 2. Whether the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and if so whether the respondent is justified in passing an order of removal from service? 3. Whether the order of removal is disproportionate with the proved misconduct and if so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to? After considering the record of enquiry and hearing the representatives of the parties, the learned Presiding Officer held that the enquiry was fair and proper and there was no violation of the rules of natural justice; that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are based on correct appreciation of evidence and that there is no valid ground to interfere with the punishment imposed by the competent authority. Accordingly, he answered the reference against respondent No.1. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the award dated 31.1.1998 passed by the Tribunal, which contains detailed analysis of the enquiry report and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer read as under: 7. Six charges were framed against the petitioner and the first charge is that he violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’. The checking officials found that he issued tickets to 3 passengers (two adult and one chargeable child) who boarded the bus at Challagariga and bound for Garimillapally. The petitioner collected entire fare of Rs.5-25 ps., for each adult and Rs.2.75 per child. But issued three tickets of Rs.2/- denomination bearing Nos.088/869050 to 052 which were already sold and accounted in the S.R. at Stage No.1. Sri A.N.Rao, T.T.I. of R.K.S., Warangal and examined during the domestic enquiry and the petitioner cross-examined the said witness and he deposed that the petitioner sold three tickets of Rs.2/- denomination to the passengers referred in charge No.2 which were already accounted in the S.R. A.N.Rao also deposed with regard to the fact that the petitioner failed to close the try numbers and the petitioner instigated the passengers and created trouble for not giving the passengers statements. He also deposed that the petitioner used unparliamentary language and insulted them. The petitioner refused to attest the charge memo. He further deposed that the petitioner belonged to Jadalapeta and therefore there was no cooperation of serious cash and ticket irregularities. The petitioner used unparliamentary language. Sri A.N.Rao, TTI was employed in RMS, Warangal and no motives are attributed to him as to why he should depose false against the petitioner and when the petitioner was questioned by the enquiry officer whether he would examine the other TTI, the petitioner answered in negative and therefore the other TTI was not examined. The statement given by the passengers on the spot would reveal that the petitioner though collected the requisite fare issued three tickets for Rs.2/- denomination and the said statement was attested by the petitioner. The petitioner himself gave an explanation on the spot, wherein he admitted that he collected the said amount of Rs.13-25 ps. and in hurry he issued three tickets of Rs.2/- denomination. On verification, it was found that the said tickets were already accounted for in the S.R. The petitioner has not closed the try numbers of all denominations. The Special Report sent by the Regional Enforcement Squad, Warangal it was mentioned that the petitioner prevented the passengers from giving statements and used unparliamentary language against them and thus all the charges framed against the petitioner are proved and the enquiry officer has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. I have gone through the entire enquiry file and the statements of the passengers, the petitioner and the statement given by the checking officials Sri A.N.Rao and I am satisfied that all the charges framed against the petitioner are proved and therefore the respondent is justified in confirming the findings of the enquiry officer. 8. The respondent passed an order of removal of the petitioner from service. The advocate for the petitioner contended that it is harsh punishment and hence a lenient view may be taken against the petitioner. The charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature. The petitioner issued tickets of denomination of Rs.2/- to three passengers, though he collected the requisite fare from them and the said tickets were already issued and already accounted for in the SR. the issue of used tickets by the petitioner would only show the mala fide intention to defraud the revenues of the Corporation. Further, as per the report of the Regional Enforcement Squad, the petitioner instigated the passengers not to give statements and he used unparliamentary language against the checking officials and he failed to close the try numbers of all denominations against Stage Nos.6 to 9. In view of the fact that the petitioner is guilty of grave charges, the respondent having confirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer rightly passed an order of removal, which is commensurate with the proved misconduct. In view of the fact that the petitioner instigated the passengers for not giving any statement and used unparliamentary language against the checking officials, the petitioner does not deserve any mercy and he is not entitled to be reinstated, in view of the proved misconduct. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders of the removal passed by the respondent is just, proper and there are no grounds to set aside the order of the respondent. Thus, I answer the point in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner and there are no merits in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No.1 challenged the award in Writ Petition No.11641 of 1998. The learned Single Judge held that only three charges i.e. charge Nos.1, 2 and 6 can be treated as proved; that the charges were trivial in nature and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein). Accordingly, he allowed the writ petition and directed that the workman be appointed as a fresh Conductor. Smt.P. Rajani submitted that the award of the Tribunal was based on a comprehensive and correct analysis and evaluation of the evidence produced during the domestic enquiry and the learned Single Judge committed a serious error by re-evaluating the evidence and holding that three of the charges levelled against the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) have not been proved. She emphasized that respondent No.1 was found guilty of financial delinquency and argued that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error by directing his re-appointment as Conductor ignoring the cogent reasons assigned by the Tribunal for not exercising power under Section 11-A of the Act. Shri M. Srinivas Rao supported the order of the learned Single Judge and argued that the direction given for re-appointment of respondent No.1 does not suffer from any patent legal infirmity warranting interference under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. We have given serious thought to the entire matter. The parameters for exercise of High Court’s power to issue a writ of certiorari are well defined. Such writ, order or direction can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals or quasi-judicial authorities. A writ can also be issued where, in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or the Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority acts illegally or improperly, i.e., it decides a question without giving an opportunity of hearing to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted by it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. However, it must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is supervisory in nature and not appellate one. This necessarily means that the finding of fact reached by the inferior Court, Tribunal etc., as a result of the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings except when the judgment, order or award suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. An error of law is one which can be discovered on a bare reading of the judgment, order or award under challenge along with the documents which have been relied upon by the inferior Court, Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority. An error, the discovery of which is possible only after a detailed scrutiny of the evidence produced by the parties and lengthy debate at the bar cannot be regarded as an error of law for the purpose of a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal or quasi- judicial authority can be corrected only if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Court etc., had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence and the same has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, a finding of fact based on no evidence would be regarded as error of law which can be corrected by issuing a writ of certiorari. However, sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence relied upon by the inferior Court of Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority cannot be gone into by the High Court while considering the prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari. Likewise, mere possibility of forming a different opinion on re-appreciation of evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient for issue of a writ of certiorari. – Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others[1], Shaik Mahammad Umarsaheb v. Kadalaskar Hasham Karimsab and others[2], R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab and others[3], Mohd. Shahnawaz Akhtar and another v. I ADJ Varanasi & ors.[4] and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [5]. In Writ Petition No.9840 of 1997 – C. Rami Reddy v. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and another, decided on 04.4.2007, one of us (the Chief Justice) considered the question whether the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal or for that reason this Court can interfere with the discretion exercised by the employer to remove the conductor from service on the charge of financial misdemeanor and observed: “While adjudicating such matters, the Court has to keep in mind that a Conductor serving the Corporation plays an important role in collection of the revenue, which, ultimately, constitutes the part of fund on which the Corporation carries its business, industry and undertaking. If an employee belonging to that cadre is found guilty of financial misdemeanor, then he has to be dealt with appropriate seriousness and adequately punished. Generally speaking, the employees of the Corporation, as other employees of the government and its agencies/instrumentalities, are trustees of public faith and confidence and are expected to serve the organization with complete devotion, honesty and commitment. If an employee is found guilty of misappropriation of public funds, corruption, dishonesty, fraud, etc., then he has no right to remain in service. The employer is duty bound to show him the door as early as possible. In this connection, reference can usefully be made to the judgments of this Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Additional Judge, Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal[6] and of Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Jamnadas Behari Bhai [7] .” We shall now consider whether the present one was a fit case for exercise of power by the Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Act and whether the learned Single Judge committed an error by interfering with the discretion exercised by the employer to remove respondent No.1 from service. Section 11-A of the Act, which has been interpreted in several judicial pronouncements, reads as under: “11-A. Power of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of Workmen:- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: Provided that in any proceeding under this Section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.” By enacting the above reproduced provision, the Parliament has conferred statutory power on the Labour Courts/Tribunals/National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in the cases of discharge or dismissal of workmen. By exercising power under Section 11-A the Labour Courts/Tribunals/National Tribunals are entitled to set aside an order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. However, power under Section 11-A can be exercised only on fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in that Section, namely, that the Labour Court/Tribunal or the National Tribunal must be satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. However, conferment of wide power on the Labour Court/Tribunal or National Tribunal to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal does not mean that in each and every case the Labour Court/Tribunal or National Tribunal has got untrammeled power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer. The power has to be exercised only after the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the delinquent. The satisfaction of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National tribunal is not a subjective satisfaction but clearly an objective satisfaction. This obviously involves application of mind by the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal on various relevant circumstances, like the nature of delinquency committed by the workman, his past conduct, the impact of the delinquency on the employer’s business/industry as also the total length of service rendered by the workman. That apart, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal is required to consider as to whether the decision taken by the Management is just or not. Only after due consideration of these factors, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal can upset the punishment imposed by the employer. Interference cannot be done by the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal with the quantum of punishment without recording a specific finding in the manner aforesaid and after consideration of the material circumstances. I n Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co.[8], the Supreme Court considered the background in which Section 11-A was inserted in the Act and laid down the following propositions: “Therefore, it will be seen that both in respect of cases where a domestic enquiry has been held as also in cases where the Tribunal considers the matter on the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the satisfaction under Section 11A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or other. Even in cases where an enquiry has been held by an employer and a finding of misconduct arrived at, the Tribunal can now differ from that finding in a proper case and hold that no misconduct is proved. We are not inclined to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the employers that the stage for interference under Section 11A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer. It has to be remembered that a Tribunal may hold that the punishment is not justified because the misconduct alleged and found proved is such that it does not warrant dismissal or discharge. The Tribunal may also hold that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified because the alleged misconduct itself is not established by the evidence. To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to reappraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge. The Tribunal may also hold that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified because the alleged misconduct itself is not established by the evidence. To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to reappraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge. That is why, according to us, Section 11A now gives full power to the Tribunal to go into the evidence and satisfy itself on both these points. Now the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings recorded by him in a domestic enquiry. Such a power to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion about the guilt or otherwise was always recognised in a Tribunal when it was deciding a dispute on the basis of evidence adduced before it for the first time. Both categories are now put on a par by Section 11A. Another change that has been effected by Section 11A is the power conferred on a Tribunal to alter the punishment imposed by an employer. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is established, either by the domestic enquiry accepted by it or by the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the Tribunal originally had no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Once the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating victimisation. Under S.11A, though the Tribunal may hold that the misconduct is proved, nevertheless it may be of the opinion that the order of discharge or dismissal for the said misconduct is not justified. In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award to the workman only lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has been now conferred on the Tribunal by S.11A. The Legislature in S.11A has made a departure in certain respects in the law as laid down by this Court. For the first time, power has been given to a Tribunal to satisfy itself whether misconduct is proved. This is particularly so, as already pointed out by us, regarding even findings arrived at by an employer in an enquiry properly held. The Tribunal has also been given power, also for the first time, to interfere with the punishment imposed by an employer. When such wide powers have been now conferred on Tribunals, the legislature obviously felt that some restrictions have to be imposed regarding what matters could be taken into account. Such restrictions are found in the Proviso. The Proviso only emphasises that the Tribunal has to satisfy itself one way or other regarding misconduct, the punishment and the relief to be granted to workmen only on the basis of the 'materials on record' before it. What those materials comprise of have been mentioned earlier. The Tribunal, for the purposes referred to above, cannot call for further or fresh evidence, as an appellate authority may normally do under a particular statute, when considering the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by a subordinate body. The 'matter' in the Proviso refers to the order of discharge or dismissal that is being considered by the Tribunal.” In Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees Union v. Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal[9], a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court referred to various judicial precedents including the often-quoted judgment in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra) and held: “Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) confers a wide power upon the Labour Court, Tribunal or the National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workman. While adjudicating on a reference made to it, the Labour Court, Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be, if satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, may, while setting aside the same, direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if