THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20128 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner, who was formerly working as a Conductor in the APSRTC, has filed the present Writ Petition questioning the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, dated 11.12.1999, in I.D.No.82 of 1998, affirming the order of removal passed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in Hyderabad-II Depot of APSRTC, on 20.01.1977. On 22.03.1996, while he was conducting a bus bearing No.AP-9Z-7278 on the route from Bangalore to Hyderabad, at stages 7/5, a check was exercised by the checking officials and they have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Subsequently, a charge sheet, dated 03.04.1996 was issued framing as many as five charges, which read as under: “1. For having reissued the ticket Nos/039/480067, 068 and 069 of Rs.50/- den. To a batch of a passengers for their journey from Kurnool and bound for Jedcherla, extages 7 to 3 duly collecting the requisite fare of Rs.47/- (total Rs.141/-) which were already issued and accounted at stage No.13 Anantapur vide SR No.A3/4077995, dated 20.03.1996, which constitutes misconduct under Eg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963. 2. For having snatched and torned the reissued Rs.50/- den, ticket Nos.039/480067, 068 and 069 from the hands of the TTIs and swallowed its upper portion which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxx) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having refused to acknowledge the charge memo and to attest the passenger statement which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(viii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963. 4. For having instigated the passengers for not to give any statement which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xvii) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 5. For having closed Rs.3/- den. as 029/839169 instead of 029/839160 against stage Nos.12 to 5 vide SR No.A3/4077995 dated 20.03.1996 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxv) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 20.08.1996. Though the petitioner has not submitted his explanation within the time stipulated in the charge sheet, but however, the disciplinary authority has appointed an Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. In the enquiry proceedings also, the petitioner did not appear in spite of granting several opportunities, and as such, an ex parte enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, on completion of enquiry, submitted his report by recording a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Consequently, on due service of notice, the respondents have ordered for removal of the petitioner on 07.10.1996. Though he has availed the remedy of appeal, the appellate authority has rejected the same by order, dated 06.03.1997. Even the review authority also shared the same view by his order, 16.07.1997. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, as confirmed by the appellate and review authorities, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute by filing an application in I.D.No.82 of 1998 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and even the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, by the impugned award, has rejected the claim petition without granting any relief. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation; and perused the record, including the report of the Enquiry Officer, a copy of which is filed along with the material papers. 4. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that though several representations were made by the petitioner to supply the relevant documents for submitting his reply to the charges, but the same was not obliged. The disciplinary authority, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, has proceeded with the enquiry. Based on such enquiry, which itself was conducted without giving opportunity, no order of removal could have been passed against the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner did not reissue the tickets, but however, the three passengers, who initially obtained tickets to travel only up to Kurnool, have thereafter, purchased separate tickets for extended journey, as such, the enquiry was not properly conducted and order of removal was passed without appreciating the case in proper perspective. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents- Corporation that the delinquent/employee has misappropriated an amount of Rs.140/- by reissuing three tickets, which were already used. It is further submitted that in spite of giving several opportunities, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry, and therefore, he was set ex parte. Inasmuch as the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, the order of removal was passed and the same was confirmed by the appellate and review authorities, and also by the Industrial Tribunal. It is submitted that inasmuch as the findings of the Tribunal are in accordance with the evidence on record, there is no illegality in the award, so as to interfere with the same in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. On a perusal of the award and the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, it is clear that in spite of granting several opportunities, the petitioner did not choose to participate in the enquiry. After issuing charge sheet, though the explanation is not submitted within the stipulated time, to give further opportunity to the petitioner, a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Even the Enquiry Officer sent two enquiry notices, dated 21.05.1996 and 22.08.1996, intimating the petitioner to attend the enquiry, but as the petitioner did not choose to attend, he had to conduct ex parte enquiry. 7. In the domestic enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer observed that according to the report of the checking officials, the petitioner has reissued the tickets and collected an amount of Rs.141/-. Even with reference to charge No.2, it is categorically stated by the checking officials that the petitioner has snatched and torn the reissued tickets and swallowed their upper portion. Further, in the report of the checking officials, it is stated that the petitioner has instigated the passengers not to give their statements and also refused to attest the same and acknowledge the charge memo. Hence, there is ample evidence in proof of the charges levelled against the petitioner. 8. Further, from the award, it is clear that the past record of the delinquent/employee is also bereft of any clean service and he was censured two times; his annual increments were deferred 6 times; he was placed under suspension for 5 times; and was removed from service for 3 times earlier i.e. on 27.04.1982, 11.07.1986 and 16.11.1993 in cash and ticket irregularities cases. Though it is pleaded by the learned counsel for petitioner that the documents were not supplied to the petitioner, but however from the proceedings itself, it is clear that pursuant to the representation filed by the petitioner, necessary documents were already issued to him. In that view of the matter, the order of removal is based on the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry. Even the Labour Court, on re- appreciation of evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. In view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the findings recorded in support of the charges framed against the petitioner are either perverse or illegal so as to interfere with the same in this Writ Petition. 9. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and the past record of the petitioner, and also the evidence on record in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner, which are grave, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition, calling for interference. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dt.18.11.2008 GJ