IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 14585 of 2004 Between: The Stores Officer, BBW Stores, A.P.S.R.T.C., Miyapur, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri V.Venkateshwarlu, s/o Narsaiah, H.No.2-22-111, Vijayanagar Pipe Line Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, rep., by its Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 especially in the nature of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award dt.13-04-2004 made in I.D.No.135/2002, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad published on 13-07-2004 setting aside the order of removal dt.4-1-2002 and directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service, though without back wages and attendant benefits, and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 14585 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) represented by its Stores Officer filed the present Writ Petition assailing the award dated 13.04.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court I, Hyderabad i.e. second respondent herein in I.D.No.135 of 2002 whereby the first respondent herein was ordered to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and 25% of back wages. 2 The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent herein was appointed as Junior Assistant on 08.01.1980 and thereafter promoted to the post of Material Assistant. While so, on the allegation that he committed certain irregularities in connivance with the security personnel in getting the weighment of consignment of alluminium sheets outside on 14.03.2001 a preliminary enquiry was conducted and basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the first respondent was suspended from services with effect from 27.04.2001 and a charge memo was also issued, which reads as under: “For having connived with the Security Personnel Sri Yousuf Ali and the truck driver Sri Likuvinder Singh of Truck No. AHT 7505 of M/s TCI on 14.3.2001 and attempted to obtain false wieghment certificate from the weight bridge operator Sri Ashok Reddy in order to check and cause financial loss to the corporation (600 kgs. Of approx) of Alluminium sheets worth of Rs.80,000/- (Approx) which constitutes misconduct under Regulations 28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963” 3 A detailed explanation was offered, but, however, the enquiry officer held that the said charge is proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the said enquiry report, after following due procedure, removed the first respondent from service vide proceedings dated 04.01.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, but the same was dismissed on 09.05.2002. Questioning the same the first respondent raised a dispute before the second respondent which was numbered as I.D.No.135 of 2002. Though the petitioner as well as the first respondent have not adduced any oral evidence, they exhibited Exs.M.1 to M.30 and Exs.W.1 to W.27 respectively. The Presiding Officer, while holding that there is misconduct on the part of the first respondent, but, however, came to the conclusion that the said misconduct is not that much grave warranting removal of the first respondent from service and accordingly set aside the orders passed by the authorities and ordered his reinstatement into service with continuity of service and payment of back wages at 25% of the total wages. As stated supra, the said award is under challenge in this Writ Petition by APSRTC. 4 Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the first respondent. 5 In my considered opinion, the view taken by the Presiding Officer of the second respondent appears to be correct. The alleged theft/attempt to commit theft by third party was brought to the notice of the petitioner management on the evening of 14.03.2001 itself. From the said conduct it cannot be said that the first respondent is guilty of the charge and he is hand in glove with the security personnel i.e. Yousuf Ali and the truck driver Likuvinder Singh. No doubt, there are lapses on the part of the first respondent, for which, in my considered view, the major punishment like removal from service is unwarranted. Accordingly I see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the second respondent. However, as it is clear that there are some lapses on the part of the first respondent and the first respondent was out of service from 04.01.2002 to 13.04.2004, the back wages may not be ordered to be paid. 6 Accordingly, concurring with the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court in so far as setting aside the order of removal from service and reinstatement is concerned, this court is setting aside the said award in respect of the payment of back wages at 25%. 7 The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. --------------------- 18.06.2009 kvsn