THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.7559 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation questioning the Award of the Labour Court dated 11-05-1999 passed in I.D. No.31 of 1993. 2. The first respondent herein was working as Tyre Mechanic in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by framing two charges, which read as under: “1. For having conspired with a common intention a n d provocated Sri B.Saptharaju, E.87416, cleaner of Jangareddy Gudem Depot to attempt murder by throwing acid on Sri M.Satyanarayana, DM/BVRM on 15-12-1985 at about 19-15 hours while he was walking to his residence from depot garage along with his associates (named above allegations which comes under misconduct as per regulation-28(XV) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having engaged in business of lending money to the employees of Bhimavaram Depot, which comes under misconduct under Regulation No.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulation 1963.” 3. The first respondent filed explanation to the said charges denying the same, but however, based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect was ordered by the disciplinary authority. The punishment award was also confirmed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal filed by the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent herein raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication by the Government vide G.O. Rt. No.159 dated 23-01- 1993. By the impugned award the reference was ordered in favour of the workman by declaring the action of the Divisional Manager in withholding annual increment is illegal. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and S r i A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 5. In this Writ Petition, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the petitioner corporation that without recording any valid reasons, the dispute raised by the first respondent was answered in favour of the workman. 6. Further, on the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that in this case the accusation was only against Saptharaju and one another person by name Venkateswara Rao, against whom prosecution was launched. It is submitted that even against Venkateswara Rao, whose name was figured in the complaint, was also acquitted by the criminal Court for lack of evidence. 7. In the impugned award, the labour Court has recorded a finding that immediately after the incident, the Depot Manager also reported to the Bhimavaram Police and based on which a case was registered in Crime No.333 of 1985 for the alleged offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code only against Saptha Raju and Venkateswara Rao. Investigation in the criminal proceedings reveals that the prime accused made an attempt by conspiring with one Mr.Venkateswara Rao only. Though the departmental proceedings are initiated that the first respondent also conspired with a common intention, but however, there is no supporting material to prove the charge. From the investigation conducted in the criminal proceedings and other material on record, it is clear that so far as first respondent is concerned there was no complaint against him and there is no other supporting material to prove that he has conspired along with prime accused viz., Saptharaju in making attempt against the life of the Depot Manager. 8. So far as second charge is concerned, though there was allegation that the first respondent was doing money lending business, which is misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, there was absolutely no evidence at all to prove that he was lending money for business purposes. In that view of the matter, even with reference to second charge, there was no valid basis for imposing the punishment on the first respondent. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit. 10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 18th March, 2009. skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7559 of 2000 Between: The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Euluru, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 P. Prasada Rao, Rep. by its Divisional Secretary, APSRTC., Employees Union, West Godavari Division, Eluru Post, West Godavari District. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. .....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 call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.31/93 dated 11-5-99 on the file of the Labour Court at Guntur and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issued of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ of order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR The Court made the following :