IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 11546 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manger, APSRTC, Tadipatri, Ananthpur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ananthpur District. 2 K.R.Chandrudu, C/o D.K. Muthy, 1/182, B-3-2, Soamanathnagar, Ananathpur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an apprioprate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certionari and call for records relating to and in connection with the award in ID 154/94 Dt.26-8-98 on the file of the 1st Respondents and quash the same including the consequential G.O.Rt. No.1977 dt. 16-11-98 as arbitrary, illegal and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 11546 of 1999 ORDER: 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition questioning the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ananthapur in I.D.No.154 of 1994 dated 26.08.1998 whereby the order of removal of the second respondent from service was set aside and the Corporation was directed to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and full back wages. 2 Brief facts are that the second respondent was appointed as conductor and attached to Tadipathri depot and while working as such on 17.09.1991 he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities. On the basis of the said irregularities a charge sheet was issued framing as many as 8 charges against the second respondent. The second respondent had also submitted his explanation. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry and it appears that the enquiry officer having conducted an enquiry in accordance with the procedure and law provided for submitted his report on 23.09.1991 holding that the second respondent is guilty of all the charges leveled against him. On the basis of the said report, the depot manager APSRTC Ananthapur who is the competent authority to impose penalty came to the conclusion that the second respondent shall be removed out of service and accordingly after following the due procedure passed an order removing the second respondent from service on 06.01.1992. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter the second respondent preferred I.D.No.154 of 1994. Before the Labour court nobody was examined either on behalf of the second respondent or on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation and similarly no documents were marked. After hearing the counsel appearing on either side, and also after perusing the material available on record, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the removal of the second respondent from service is bad and accordingly directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the second respondent into service with all back wages and continuity of service. As stated supra, dissatisfied with the said award passed by the Labour Court the Corporation preferred this Writ Petition. 3 Though the notice is served on the second respondent he has not put in his appearance. 4 Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 5 Along with the second respondent, the Assistant Depot Clerk was also charge sheeted for the very same allegations. But the enquiry officer did not find him guilty. On the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner herein exonerated the said Assistant Depot Clerk of all the charges. In fact, the said Assistant Depot Clerk and the second respondent are equally responsible for any lapses. When once the enquiry officer as well as the petitioner have held that the said Assistant Depot Clerk is not guilty of the charges leveled against him, in my considered view, the authorities competent ought not to have inflicted such a severe punishment i.e. removal from service upon the second respondent. 6 The amount involved in this is only Rs.133.50 ps and the same was paid at a later stage. Of course, the said payment may not be relevant, but, in the given circumstances even that aspect can be gone into. All these aspects prompted the Labour Court to take the view that the second respondent is not guilty of the offences for which he was charge sheeted. 7 From a perusal of the evidence on record, coupled with the orders passed by the Labour Court, this court is of the view that there was some dereliction of duty on the part of the 2nd respondent, for which, in my considered view, he shall be penalised. This court while issuing rule nisi suspended the operation of the award passed by the Labour Court in so far as it relates to the payment of back wages on a condition that the petitioner Corporation pays half of the arrears due to the second respondent within a period of four weeks from 15.06.1999 and the said amount must have already been paid by the petitioner to the second respondent. 8 In that view of the mater, while concurring with the award passed by the Labour Court at Ananthapur, in so far as the reinstatement of the second respondent into service with continuity of service is concerned, the payment of back wages is hereby ordered to be restricted to the amount already paid by the petitioner – Corporation to the second respondent. 9 With the above modification, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ----------------------- 04.06.2009 kvsn