THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.334 OF 2004 DATED 22ND JANUARY, 2010 BETWEEN Chitipireddy Venkataiah … Petitioner and The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur. And Another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.334 OF 2004 ORDER: The NIL Award dated 22.04.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.82 of 2000 is under challenge. The petitioner, in the said I.D. and in this writ petition, was a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘APSRTC’). While he was conducting the bus service on the route Badvel to B.Mattam on 30.07.1997 a check was made and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. Thereupon, charge sheet dated 12.08.1997 was issued to him enumerating the following three charges: “CHARGES 1) For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ while you were conducting the bus No.AP-9Z-3237 on route Badvel-B.Mattam on 30.7.97 which is a misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2) For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 9 passengers who boarded your bus at Gollapalli and bound for Somireddypalli ex.stages 6/7 to 7 even after collecting an amount of Rs.2/- each, which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3) For having closed the SR of all denomination except Rs.2/- denomination against the stage No.2, which is a misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Thereupon, a regular domestic enquiry was instituted and by report dated 21.11.1997, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved. Consequently, the petitioner was removed from service by the APSRTC under order dated 11.12.1997. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. By Award dated 22.04.2003, the Labour Court held that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was reasonable as the case was clearly one of misappropriation and defrauding the revenues of the APSRTC. Hence, this writ petition. The substantial charge levelled against the petitioner was with regard to his failure in issuing tickets to a batch of 9 passengers in spite of having collected the fare from them. On evidence, the Labour Court found that there were only 28 passengers in the bus and that the petitioner himself admitted the receipt of ticket fare from the 9 passengers who had not been issued tickets. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the findings of the Labour Court that these 9 passengers were on the point of alighting from the bus. He states that the Conductor was on the verge of punching and issuing tickets to them when the check was made. However, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot venture into or decide such disputed questions of fact. Further, the version put forth by the petitioner that these 9 passengers were comprised in 2 separate groups of 4 passengers each and one individual passenger and that the individual passenger had delayed the payment of his fare thereby resulting in the delay in issuing of tickets, does not commend itself to acceptance. Once the fare had been collected from the 2 batches of 4 passengers each, there was no justification for the petitioner not to have issued tickets to them. The further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statements of all the 9 passengers were not recorded by the TTI and therefore the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated due to this procedural lapse, also does not hold water. One passenger, U.Venkateswaralu, gave a statement on behalf of the 9 passengers and the petitioner himself made an endorsement on the said statement that it was written in his presence and that the contents therein were true. As these 9 passengers were together even as per the petitioner, who cited the same as the reason for the delay in the issuance of tickets, it is not open to him to challenge the proceedings on the ground that only one single statement was recorded on behalf of all the 9 passengers. The scope of enquiry by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction is limited. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, in matters of this nature it is not for this Court to sit as a Court of Appeal or substitute its view on the given facts. The Labour Court, being the Court of the first instance, found that there was sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the petitioner had committed misappropriation thereby depriving the APSRTC of its rightful revenues. In the light of the seriousness of the charge which was held proved during the domestic enquiry and affirmed by the Labour Court, no case is made out for interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 22ND JANUARY, 2010. VGSR