IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2010 of 2000 Between: L.Rossana, S/o Ksamma, R/o H.No.8-3-65, Venkateswara Nagar, Cuddpah Road, Near RTC Bus Stand, Opp to SC Gospel, Allagadda, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., Proddutur Depot, Cuddpah District. 2 The Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur. .....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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for records in and relating to the award, dt 22-1-98 in I.D.No. 99/96 of the 2nd Respondent which is published through G.O.Rt.No.517, Labour Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-I)Department, dt 7-3-98 by the State Government and quash the same in so far as holding that the charges against the petitioner is proved and declare the award in so far as not granting the full backwages and imposing the punishment of defer of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustified, unsustainable and unreasonable and hold that the petitioner is entitled to restainment withall consequently and attendant benefits including the back wages and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed, challenging the award dated 22nd January 1998, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.99 of 1996, to the extent of not granting backwages and imposing the punishment of deferring three annual increments with cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner herein is working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, and is attached to Proddutur Depot. On the ground that he was involved in certain cash and ticket irregularities and the same were noticed during the audit, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge sheet, dated 30.07.1994, was issued to him, by framing the following four charges : “1. For having issued used tickets of Rs.70/- denm., bearing Nos.004/746086 to 089 worth of Rs.280/- which were sold and accounted by you in the S.R.No.A2/4847524, dt.10/12.6.94 against stage No.13 i.e., Guntur which were issued to four Excise Personnel 1, who traveled in your bus from Vijayawada to Proddatur, from stage No.19 to 1 on Police Warrant No.17175 issued by excise Sub-inspector, Tirupathi, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having not issued and endorsed worth of Rs.80/- tickets to the 4 personnel referred in charge No.1, as combination tickets to Rs.70/- and Rs.8/- denm. tickets for their journey from Vijayawada to Proddatur, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(x) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having defrauded the revenues of Corporation to an extent of Rs.360/- by issuing tickets worth Rs.32/- instead of Rs.393/- for the 4 excise personnel travelled on the warrant referred in Charge No.1 & 2 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1961. 4. For having cheated the Organisation and as well as excise department by endorsing Rs.70/- denm., tickets bearing No.004/746086 to 089 worth of Rs.280/- as Rs.90/- denm., tickets worth of Rs.360/- which were not in order vide Charge No.1 on the Excise Police Warrant No.17175, dt.11-6-1994 while 4 Police personnel travelled in your bus referred in charges 1 to 3 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” 3. The petitioner did not submit any explanation to the abovesaid charges levelled against him. Therefore, the disciplinary authority has ordered for a regular inquiry, by appointing an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner, has submitted his inquiry report, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Based on the said inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has ordered for removal of petitioner from service. Against the said order of removal, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.99 of 1996 before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner himself has admitted about making wrong entries in the S.R., but taking into account the fact that there was no monetary loss caused to the Corporation, exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, and substituted the punishment of removal with that of reinstatement with attendant benefits, but without backwages, and also ordered for stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. 4. In this writ petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the punishment awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. The said argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted having regard to the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved in the domestic inquiry and also held proved by the Tribunal, but, the Tribunal has considered the issue liberally and substituted the punishment of removal with that of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The Tribunal has rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, and having regard to the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, which are proved in the domestic inquiry, it cannot be said that the punishment of deferring three annual increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. As no other argument is advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to grant the relief as prayed for. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th February 2009. ajr