IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16276 of 2002 Between: Md. Yousuf Hussain, S/o. Mahaboob Ali, R/o. H.No.6-2-313/1, Hussainipura, Kharkhanagadda, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Godavarrkhani, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Godavarikhani Depot., Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. .....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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in Nature of Writ of CERTIORARI by calling for records pertaining to the Award passed in I.D.No.149/2000, dt.24/8/01 on the file of Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Published in G.O.Rt.No.2490 after declaring it as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to Re-instate the petitioner into services as driver with back wages from the date of removal and all attendent benefits in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHIINI WRIT PETITION No.16276 OF 2002 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Award dated 24.8.2001 in I.D.No.149 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani and quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1988. On 16.6.1998 he was issued a charge-sheet alleging that he was absent from duties unauthorisedly from 31.10.1997 to 4.11.1997, 1.4.1998, 12.4.1998 to 14.4.1998, 15.5.1998, 16.5.1998 and 29.5.1998 to 16.6.1998. The petitioner submitted his explanation and after conducting enquiry the petitioner was removed from service holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.D.No.149 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On behalf of the Corporation a counter was filed contesting the proceedings and Exs.M-1 to M-34 documents were marked. However, the petitioner did not choose to produce any evidence either oral or documentary. The Tribunal below, on appreciation of the material on record, concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the malice alleged against the officials of the Corporation. The Tribunal also found that on account of frequent absence of the petitioner from duty, lot of dislocation and considerable monetary loss had caused to the Department and therefore it is not a fit case for exercising the discretion under Section 11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the penalty of removal was upheld by order dated 24.8.2001. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia that since the witnesses on behalf of the management were not examined by the enquiry officer and the domestic enquiry report and statements recorded by the enquiry officer were not furnished to him the order of removal was in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner also sought to contend that the alleged unauthorized absence was without any basis since he went on sick leave from 29.5.1998 to 16.6.1998. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions in COOPER ENGINEERING LTD. v. P.P. MUNDHE[1], U.P.S.R.T. CORPN. v. MAHESH KUMAR MISHRA[2] and S. RAJA MOULI v. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT, KARIMNAGAR AND ANOTHER[3]. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in the above decisions that the defective enquiry or absence of domestic enquiry is a valid ground for interference with the penalty imposed by the management. However, this is a case where the petitioner did not choose to adduce any evidence to show that the domestic enquiry was vitiated on any ground whatsoever. There was no evidence at all on his behalf and the Tribunal on appreciation of the material available on record held that the allegations of the petitioner were unfounded. In the circumstances, the Tribunal below cannot be held to have committed any error in not interfering with the punishment of removal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.04.2009 gbs [1] AIR 1975 SC 1900 [2] 2000 (85) FLR 291 [3] 2009 (2) ALD (NOC 28)