HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7968 OF 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed against the award in I.D. No.142 of 1997 dated 20-10-2000 passed by the learned Chairman – cum – Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Godavarikhani. 2. The facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent Corporation, APSRTC, and on 13-02-1996 Conductor of the bus of which petitioner was on duty reported that petitioner drove the bus in a drunken condition. A domestic enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry, he was removed from service on 05-06-1996. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he was working as driver in the Corporation and on 13-02-1996, he was directed to drove the bus bearing No.4870 from Konapur to Korutla and as the Conductor of the bus developed ill feelings against him gave a false complaint against him to the officials of the Corporation stating that he drove the bus in a drunken condition. He also contended that he gave an explanation to the Corporation stating that as he was suffering from stomach pain, he went to an R.M.P. (medical practitioner) and took some medicines, but he did not drink. Based on the complaint charge sheet was issued and a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner without considering the explanation submitted by him. The main contention of the petitioner is that there was no medical examination to decide that he was in drunken condition at the time of driving. 4. The Corporation filed its counter contending that petitioner was in drunken condition as revealed from the material on record and Conductor of that bus has given the complaint against him. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the award impugned suffers from any illegality or infirmity ? 6. The fact that petitioner was driving the bus in drunken condition, perhaps, cannot be disputed as Conductor of the same bus has given complaint stating that petitioner was in drunken condition while driving the bus. However, petitioner says that said Conductor has developed ill feeling against him, it is not stated as to why the Conductor has developed ill feeling against him and what was the enmity between them. There is absolutely no material to show that there were any ill feelings between the Conductor and the petitioner. Naturally, Conductor would be supporting his driver and at least he would not give a false complaint against the driver of the bus. Apart from the evidence of the bus Conductor, there is other material to show that petitioner drove the bus in drunken condition. Thus, I see no illegality or infirmity to set aside the finding of the Tribunal with regard to petitioner driving the bus in a drunken condition. 7. The incident in question has taken place on 13-02-1996 and the petitioner was removed from service on 05-06-1996. Thus, petitioner is out of employment for 15 years and by now he must have learnt his lessons. Hence, on humanitarian grounds, his case can be considered for fresh appointment. 8. Therefore, it is directed that the respondent Corporation shall appoint the petitioner as driver afresh only after conducting all relevant tests to decide whether he is suitable for appointment as driver within one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to be given appointment afresh purely on humanitarian grounds and he is not entitled to any back wages or continuity of service. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 2, 2010. NOTE: Dispatch the order by tomorrow. (B/O) PV