IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 45 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated in No : of on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND ..RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 45 of 2001 JUDGEMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Questioning the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.15235 of 2000, dated 18.08.2000, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) has filed the present writ appeal. The aforesaid writ petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records and to quash the Award passed in I.D.No.189 of 1995, dated 30.12.1999. 2. The learned Single Judge observed in the order that even though the domestic inquiry had been vitiated, the Corporation found that the charges were held proved and the punishment of removal was imposed. Questioning the order of removal, the respondent approached the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.189 of 1995 and the Labour Court by its order, dated 30.12.1999, held that there was utter failure on the part of the department to note down the names of the passengers in respect of charges 2 to 5, the respondent had no opportunity to meet the same, the management had utterly failed to adduce appropriate evidence to substantiate the charges and the Labour Court having found so, exercising the powers under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, had ordered imposition of punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and without counting the period of suspension undergone for any purpose, including the terminal benefits and that wages be not paid for the said period. It was declared that the respondent was entitled to back-wages. The learned Single Judge having found that there was no illegality or perversity in the Award passed by the Labour Court, affirmed the Award and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant herein. It is argued that the learned Single Judge should not have dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the management has failed to let in appropriate evidence to substantiate the charges leveled against the respondent and that the order of the Labour Court reducing punishment of removal from service to that of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect should not have been confirmed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that, as held by the learned Single Judge, the employer-Corporation has utterly failed to obtain the full names and addresses of the passengers, in respect of charges 2 to 5 and that in the absence of any material available about the involvement of the respondent in the said charges, the management, instead of passing the order of removal, might have imposed any other lesser punishment. Hence, the Labour Court was perfectly justified in reducing the punishment to that of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. 4. Having perused the material available on record, and also the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that even before this Court also, there is no material available to show that the names of the passengers and their addresses have been recorded by the Corporation and in the absence of such material, it has to be held that the respondent has not been accorded any opportunity to meet the charges, as held by the Labour Court and concurred by the learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference of this Court in this Writ Appeal. 5. In the above circumstances, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 30-06-2008 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J GS/ASP