HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6814 of 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking to set aside the award, dated 19th October 1990, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.118 of 1989, with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent-Corporation, to reinstate the petitioner into service. 2. On 22nd May 1977, the petitioner was on duty, as a Conductor of the bus bearing No.APZ-6460 on the route from TBRS to Yemmiganur. In transit, a check was exercised at Stage No.2, and the checking officials have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. With reference to the said irregularities, on the report by the checking officials, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was issued charge sheet, dated 25th May 1977, with the following charges : “(a) For having failed to issue tickets to ten (10) individual passengers found traveling without tickets from Malahari to Yemmiganur, ex- stages 3 to 1 inspite of collecting the requisite fare at their boarding point itself. (b) For having failed to issue tickets to twenty three (23) individual passengers found traveling without tickets from Chilakadona to Yemmiganur, ex-stages 5 to 1 inspite of collecting the requisite fare at their boarding point itself. (c) For having closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations upto stage No.3, and (d) For having failed to observe the rule issue and start.” 3. Though the petitioner has filed his explanation to the charge sheet, the respondents, having not satisfied with the said explanation offered by the petitioner, have proceeded to conduct inquiry by appointing an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry in the domestic inquiry proceedings, has recorded a finding that all the charges famed against the petitioner are proved. Based on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the petitioner was removed from service. Though the petitioner has resorted to remedy of appeal and review before the departmental authorities, he was unsuccessful. Thereafter, he has also raised an industrial dispute by filing a claim petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same was tried by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.118 of 1989. 4. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was let in by either of the parties, and only documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the management in Exs.M-1 to M-15. The Labour Court, having considered the evidence on record, has recorded a finding that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, and therefore, passed an award, holding that the workman is not entitled for any relief. 5. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the petitioner/workman was in the process of issuing tickets, the check has taken place, and as such, there is no evidence on record in support of the charges levelled against him, but inspite of the same, the inquiry officer has recorded the findings adverse to him. 6. In this case, it is to be noticed that when the check has taken place, checking officials have found ticketless passengers in two batches, who have stated that though they have paid fare to the Conductor, they were not issued tickets. But, the petitioner has disputed the same and has stated that the said passengers did not pay any amount to him towards their fare. Even before the inquiry officer and before the Tribunal, same defence is taken by the petitioner, but however, taking into account the depositions of the Ticket Inspectors and also the statements recorded from the passengers under Exs.M-5 and M-6, the Tribunal has recorded its findings, concurring with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. Apart from the statements of the passengers, the spot explanation of the petitioner/workman at the time of check, which was marked as Ex.M-4, also clearly substantiates the charges levelled against him. The very conduct of the petitioner in not issuing tickets despite collecting fare from the passengers, and further, in closing the S.R. even up to Stage No.3, shows his malafide intention to pocket the revenue of the Corporation. As the charges are grave in nature, which are proved, and in view of the concurrent findings recorded by all the authorities below, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, warranting interference of this Court, to grant any relief as prayed by the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th March 2009. ajr