THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. NO.14251 OF 1996 BETWEEN: Ch.Sambasiva Rao …petitioner Vs. The Labour Court, Guntur rep. By its Presiding Officer and others .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. NO.14251 OF 1996 ORAL ORDER The petitioner assails the award of the Labour Court, Guntur dated.24-07-1995 in I.D.No.261 of 1992, insofar as the Court denied him back wages while directing his reinstatement into service with the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner was working as a driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C. having been appointed as such in 1985. After initial posting at Vijayawada depot, he was transferred to Ibrahimpatnam Bus depot. On 17-12-1990 while in service at Ibrahimpatnam the petitioner and another driver one Ch.Giridhar Rao are alleged to have quarreled, pelted stones at each other near the staff room while on duty and as a consequence one L.S.Ranga Rao is also alleged to have been injured. The security guard present at the spot tried to stop the scuffle but unable to do so reported to the police and the Controller of the Vijayawada bus Depot. On the basis of the said incident, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17-12-1990 alleging that the conduct on 17-12-1990 constitutes misconduct under Regulation. 28(xi) and 28(xviii) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 04-09-1991. Not satisfied with the explanation a disciplinary enquiry was conducted. By the order dated.24-01-1992 the punishment of removal from service was inflicted on the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Guntur under Sec.2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The Labour Court by the order dated.24-07-1995 passed an award holding that the incident did take place in the premises, but in the rest room of the Corporation, while the petitioner was not on duty and taking rest and therefore in the totality of the circumstances the punishment of removal from service was harsh and disproportionate. Consequent on the said finding, the Labour Court quashed the order of removal and directed the Employer to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages. The Labour Court held that the denial of back wages is a sufficient punishment for the misconduct of the petitioner. Clearly therefore the Labour Court found the misconduct of the petitioner established and concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao would contend that as one L.S.Ranga Rao, said to have injured in the incident was not examined in the enquiry and the petitioner and the other driver Girighdar Rao had denied having quarreled with each other and pelted stones, there was no evidence on record in support of the conclusion in the domestic inquiry that the petitioner had committed misconduct. The Labour Court was in a clear error in confirming such a perverse finding of the domestic enquiry, is the contention in this writ petition. The writ petition record discloses that the domestic inquiry report was not filed before this Court. It is not apparent therefore whether apart from the testimony of the two drivers (the petitioner and Ch.Giridhar Rao), there was any other evidence in support of the conclusion in the domestic enquiry that the incident took place and the petitioner was responsible therefor. As is well established evidence in a domestic inquiry need not be of a degree to bring home the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is some evidence oral or documentary which probablises the conclusion of guilt that would be sufficient. In the absence of the domestic inquiry report it is not possible for this Court to conclude in certiorari, that the conclusion as to the petitioner’s guilt (arrived at by the disciplinary authority and concurred by the Labour Court) is a conclusion that is based on no evidence. On the aforesaid analysis, the findings of the Labour Court as to the establishment of petitioner’s guilt in the departmental inquiry, is impeccable. The petitioner is thus liable to be visited with a penalty. The Labour Court rightly concluded that though the punishment of removal from service was excessive and disproportionate the petitioner was liable to be punished in some measure. In the discretion of the Labour Court it considered the denial of back wages to be commensurate with the established misconduct of the petitioner. This Court has no reason to disagree. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances no order as to costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 12th DECEMBER 22006 *TSNR