IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 21538 of 1999 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep: by its Depot Manager, Jeedimetla Bus Depot, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri.E.Paramaiah, C/o Sri.A.K.Jayaprakesh Rao, Adovacate H.No.3.4.206/2, Lingampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the natuer of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in I.D.No.147 of 1994 dt.27.11.98 published in G.O.Rt.No.373 dt.6.3.99 on the ﬁle of the Hob'ble Labour Court-III,Hyderabad and quash the order and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) aggrieved by the award dated 27-11-1998 in I.D.No.147 of 1994. Respondent herein was working as Conductor of the Corporation in Jeedimetla depot. On the ground that he was involved in certain cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the bus on 08-01-1990 in route No.9D between Jeedimetla to Charminar, he was charge sheeted on the following two charges. (1) For having issued the ticket bearing No.013/153119 of Rs.2/- after collecting requisite fare, which was punched on stage No.1 in up journey and was accounted in statistical return against stage No.2 to a passenger who was found travelling from Khairatabad to jeedimetla Ex-stages 5 to 14. (2) For having had an amount of Rs.10.20ps excess in bus cash at the time of check which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(xxiv) of APSRT C Employees’ Conduct Regulations, 1963. With reference to the above said charges, when he was issued a show cause notice, he ﬁled explanation denying the charges framed against him. However, the enquiry was proceeded with. The enquiry oﬃcer, who conducted the domestic enquiry proceedings, recorded the ﬁndings against the respondent-employee holding that the charges levelled against him were proved. Based on such enquiry report, by an order dated 26-05-1990, an order of his removal from service was passed by the disciplinary authority. He was also unsuccessful before the appellate and reviewing authorities and ultimately he had to question the order of his removal from service by way of an application under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. As the Corporation did not ﬁle its counter, in spite of giving several opportunities, the domestic enquiry was declared invalid and the Tribunal proceeded to record the evidence. On behalf of the workman, respondent- employee himself was examined as W.W.1 and Ex.W.1 was marked. On behalf of the Corporation, one of the checking oﬃcials was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.M1 to M13 were marked. The Tribunal having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the ﬁnding that both the charges framed against the respondent-employee were not proved as such set aside the order of his removal from service dated 26-05-1990 and ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service, with all attendant benefits and with 25% of back wages. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for Corporation that the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the evidence on record. It is further submitted that in any event the Tribunal erred in awarding back wages to the extent of 25% also. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee contended that as the counter was not ﬁled before the Tribunal, in spite of giving several opportunities, the enquiry conducted by the enquiry oﬃcer in disciplinary proceedings was declared invalid. The Tribunal having scrutinized the evidence in detail has recorded the ﬁnding that the charges are not proved. It is submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the award. With regard to the ﬁrst charge, it was the case of the Corporation that on 08-01-1990 while the respondent- employee while conducting the bus from Jeedimetla to Charminar has issued a ticket bearing No.013/153119 of Rs.2/- denomination which was punched on stage No.1 in up journey and was accounted for in statistical return against stage No.2 to a passenger and the same was issued to a passenger who boarded the bus at stage No.5. All through, it was the case of the respondent-employee that he had not issued such ticket to a passenger at stage No.5, but issued to a passenger who boarded the bus at stage No.1 and the same was accounted for in the statistical return and the said ticket was valid up to stage No.10. In spite of the speciﬁc stand, the Corporation except relying upon the oral evidence of the very same oﬃcial who conducted the check, there was no other supporting evidence to prove the charge against the respondent-employee. Apart from the same, he has also categorically stated that after issuance of such ticket at stage No.1 itself the same was entered in the statistical return and the same was valid up to stage No.10. He also deposed to the same eﬀect before the Tribunal. Having veriﬁed the statement recorded at the time of inspection under Ex.M6 and the explanation ﬁled by him under Ex.M9, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the charge is not proved. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has considered the said issue in consonance with the evidence on record and it is not known on what ground, the enquiry oﬃcer has recorded the ﬁnding on the said charge against the respondent-employee. The enquiry report is not placed before the Court and in that view of the matter, having regard to the evidence on record, the ﬁnding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal. Even with reference to the charge No.2, which is to the eﬀect that the respondent-employee was in possession of excess cash to a tune of Rs.10.20ps, it has been explained that some passenger has paid excess money and for want of change he could not repay the same. It was pleaded on behalf of the Corporation that in the column speciﬁed in the statistical return to mention such cash, the respondent- employee has mentioned ‘nil’. But, with reference to that, the Tribunal has noticed that the same was endorsed with ‘black ink’ which was tallying with the ‘remarks’ made by the inspecting oﬃcials and doubted the said entry as not that of the respondent-employee. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the ﬁnding recorded by the Tribunal. Though the charges framed against the respondent- employee are not proved, the Tribunal itself has awarded only 25% of the back wages. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ----------------------------- R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th September 2008 CVRK ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies