THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22520 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent, who is employed as a Driver in the Barkatpura Depot of APSRTC, was issued a charge sheet, dated 03.05.2006, alleging that on 27.03.2006, he was found in drunken condition, while on duty and that to avoid further steps, he has absconded from the duty. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation, denying the charges. The 3rd petitioner did not accept the explanation, and appointed an Enquiry Officer. Both the charges were held proved, and through order, dated 24.10.2006, the 3rd petitioner removed the 1st respondent from service. The internal appeal and review filed by the 1st respondent were rejected. Challenging the order of removal, the 1st respondent filed I.D.No.144 of 2009, before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Through an award, dated 04.02.2010, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. The award was published in G.O.Rt.No.416, dated 03.04.2010. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Labour Court ignored the consistent and cogent evidence and exonerated the 1st respondent from serious charges. He contends that the charges, viz., being in a drunken condition, while on duty, and having absconded from the duty, were proved, and there was no justification for the award of the Labour Court. Two charges framed against the 1st respondent read as under: 1. “For having performed duty in drunken condition on 27.03.2006 on route No.2 J which was detected at about 10.05 hrs., at Jiaguda by the Checking Officials of HES, Nirmal, which constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 2. For having absconded from the spot Jiaguda when the DM/BKP, AM(T)BKP along with a driver who have attended the spot, where the check took place, which constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.No.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” He submitted an explanation, denying the charges. According to him, he was sick and unwell, when the check took place, and a baseless allegation was made. As regards the second charge, he stated that he left with information to the concerned, on account of the illness and it cannot be treated as an act of absconding from duties. In the domestic enquiry, the charges were held proved. After exhausting departmental remedies, he approached the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the 1st respondent deposed as a witness, and filed four documents viz., Report of STI; Star document; spot inspection; and explanation submitted by the conductor. On behalf of the petitioners, the Assistant Depot Manager and Conductor were examined as MWs.1 and 2. No documentary evidence was adduced. The Labour Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the petitioners failed to prove the charge, as regards the drunkenness of the 1st respondent. A charge of this nature can be proved, only by filing medical reports or admission on the part of the concerned employee. In the absence of the same, the charge cannot be treated as proved. The second charge was also not supported by the evidence on record. The inescapable conclusion was that the 1st respondent was imposed punishment without basis. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are neither perverse, nor without basis. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.09.2010. GJ