HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 540 OF 2011 DATED 13TH JUNE, 2013 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ranigunj I Bus Depot, Secunderabad. …..Appellant And Addl.Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.Labour Court, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman, and , ors …..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 540 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: ( per AM.J.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 17671 of 2010, whereby a learned single Judge of this Court while setting aside the Award of the Labour Court which affirmed the punishment of removal from service imposed against the second respondent, directed that he should be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service and 50% of back wages, the APSRTC filed the present appeal. The second respondent while working as a Conductor in the appellant-APSRTC, was charge sheeted based on the alleged cash and ticket irregularities. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension and on an ex parte enquiry conducted against him, he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Consequently, he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the ID Act by raising ID.No. 100 of 2009. The Labour Court through its Award dated 8.4.2010 dismissed the said ID. Being not satisfied with the same, he approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 17671 of 2010, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court as stated supra. Hence this appeal by the APSRTC. Heard the learned Counsel. Perused the record. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-APSRTC submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in allowing the Writ Petition by holding that the charges levelled against the second respondent were not proved. He asserted that the strict principles of Evidence are not applicable to the Departmental Proceedings. He also pointed out that even though the concerned passengers were not examined, the management had, in fact, examined two witnesses on its behalf and proved the charges levelled against the second respondent and the Labour Court considering the evidence on record rightly affirmed the punishment of removal from service imposed against the second respondent, which ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. He therefore sought that this Writ Appeal may be allowed. A bare perusal of the record manifests that the Labour Court in the first instance found the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the second respondent were defective inasmuch as the enquiry officer submitted the ex parte report without any reference to the explanation submitted by the second respondent and even there was no mention that the second respondent had failed to submit his explanation after receipt of the charge sheet. In those circumstances, the Labour Court directed the appellant to prove the charges levelled against the second respondent. However, the appellant did not examine the passengers concerned and even it did not examine the officials who conducted the check. On the other hand, the appellant examined two witnesses on its behalf, who were not present at the relevant point of time of checking. On that basis, the Labour Court without out applying its mind in the proper perspective, surprisingly held that the charges levelled against the second respondent were proved. Taking these aspects into consideration, the learned single Judge specifically held that even though non-examination of the passengers concerned is not fatal to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the conductors/the second respondent in the case on hand, however, the charges in relation thereto could be proved only by examining the officials who were party to the checking and if neither the passengers nor the checking officials were examined, there is no way that a charge pertaining to cash and ticket irregularities could be said to have been proved against the second respondent. Further it is manifest from the material that even the Labour Court did not take into consideration the averment of the second respondent that check report was not served upon him to enable him to defend his case before the inquiry officer. Having regard to these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, rightly held that the charges levelled against the second respondent were not proved inasmuch as neither passengers nor the checking officials or the persons or officers who were part of the checking were examined. That apart, the Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi held, when an inquiry is conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Indian Evidence Act nor proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at the own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry of where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. It is therefore clear from the said decision of the Apex Court that when the conclusion or finding recorded by the disciplinary authority/Tribunal is based on no evidence or those conclusions/findings are such that no reasonable person would have ever reached on the basis of the material before it, then the Court is certainly entitled to interfere with such conclusion/finding in order to avoid miscarriage of justice to the parties. The Labour Court failed to take note of these aspects into consideration and erroneously passed the award confirming the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. The learned Single Judge, in the light of the above legal position, was perfectly right in allowing the Writ Petition under the impugned order. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interfere in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed, which we do so. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Dated 13th June, 2013. Msnro