IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25759 of 2000 Between: K.V.N.Murhty S/o. Late K.Ammanna, R/o. D.No. 13-2-32/3, Mondetivari Street, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Road Corporation, Srikakulam District. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Road Corporation, Srikakulam District. 3 The Depot Manager, Depot No.--I, A.P.State Transport Road Corporation, Srikakulam District. 4 The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction by calling for the records relating to the Award in I.D.No. 30/96 dated 8-7-1999 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and set aside the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all consequential benefits, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to hardship and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.A.PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.C.APPAIAH SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the former Conductor, who was appointed in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation attached to Depot No.1 of Srikakulam District, challenging the validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.30/96 dated 08.07.1999. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the services of the respondent – Corporation on 17.12.1987. On 17.02.1989 when he was conducting the bus bearing No.AEZ 2818 on the route Chilakalaalli - Srikakulam, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Stage No.1 at 16.30 hours. During the said check, the checking officials have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Based on the checking officials report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a charge sheet dated 27.02.1989 was issued to him, in which, three charges were framed against him, which read as under: 1. “For having failed to observe the Rule ‘Issue and start’ on 17.2.89 while conducting the vehicle AEZ 2818 on the route Chilakalapalli-Srikakulam which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(XXXII) of A.P.S.R.T.C.Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 2. “For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.4.75 from a lady passenger and failed to issue ticket to her, who boarded your bus at Rajam and bound at Srikakulam ex-stages 10 to 1 on 17.2.89 while conducting the vehicle AEZ 2818 on the route Chilakalapalli-Srikakulam which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (VI-A) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. “For having failed to observe the ticketless passenger and closed the SR upto Stage No.1 without completion of tickets issued on 17.2.89 while conducting the vehicle AEZ 2818 on the route Chilakalapalli - Srikakulam which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (XXXII) of APSRTC Employee (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” Though the petitioner filed explanation denying the charges, having not satisfied with the same the respondent-Corporation conducted regular enquiry by appointing the Chief Inspector of Divisional Manager’s Office, Srikakulam as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, having conducted the enquiry and collected the oral and documentary evidence available on record, submitted his report on 24.06.1989 by recording findings on the charges. In view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, after issuing show cause notice and by calling for explanation, passed final orders on 26.08.1989 removing the petitioner from service, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. In view of the rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioner, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.30 of 1996 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, no oral evidence was let in on behalf of the parties, but documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation under Exs.M.1 to M.14. The Tribunal having re-appreciated the evidence available on record recorded a finding that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was proved and accordingly confirmed the order of removal. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of inspection though the petitioner issued ticket to the lady passenger also, the Tribunal without examining the evidence on record in proper perspective recorded a finding that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was proved. It is also submitted that in any event the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. It is to be noted that at the time of inspection, the checking officials have noticed one lady passenger, who boarded the bus at Rajam, was alighting at the stage where the inspection took place. It was the plea of the petitioner that the said lady passenger was also issued ticket. But when the checking officials have verified the tickets at the place of check, they have found 15 passengers who were alighting the bus, were possessing tickets of Rs.4.75 ps. denomination. As much as only 15 tickets of Rs.4.75 ps. denomination were issued at Rajam, the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding to the effect that the lady passenger from whom Rs.4.75 ps. was collected, was not issued ticket. In view of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also finding recorded by the Tribunal on re-appreciation of the evidence, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the finding of fact at this stage. Further, it is also cannot be stated that having regard to the proved misconduct, the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charge. So far as Charge No.2 is concerned, in view of the findings recorded on Charge No.1, the said charge is also held proved. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Date: 24.02.2009 va