THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18351 of 2001 Date:27.1.2011 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Narsapuram, West Godavari District and another. Petitioner. And P.Nageswara Rao and another. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18351 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 21.10.2010 passed in I.D.No.251 of 1997 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. The 1st respondent herein was working as Assistant Depot Clerk in Earning Section of APSRTC Bus Depot, Narasapuram, West Godavari District. The Depot Clerks used to keep the box containing bus cash outside the Almirah occasionally whenever there was heavy cash and no place in Almirah. On 2.10.1989, at about 16.00 hours, the 1st respondent and depot clerk sorted out the cash and then the entire cash was placed in the box and locked by the Depot Clerk. The box was placed on the stool near the depot clerk table. The 1st respondent’s case is that he requested the Depot Clerk to keep the cash box in iron safe, but the depot clerk informed that there was no space available in the safe and the amount to be disbursed towards salaries was already kept in the iron safe and if the cash box is also kept there, it may be mixed up with the amount kept for salaries. Then the Depot Clerk has closed the room and handed over the duplicate key to the 1st respondent to enable him to attend the office on the next day. Next day, when the 1st respondent came to the office, he found that the cash box was missing. Total an amount of Rs.2,11,338.75 ps was kept in that cash box. After conducting preliminary enquiry, a charge sheet was issued to the 1st respondent framing the following charges: “1. For having failed to bring the facts to the notice of higher authorities when the bus cash i.e., Rs.2,11,338.75 was kept in a box and on the stool in cash room on 2.10.89 instead of keeping the same in iron safe for the safe custody which is a gross negligence resulting in theft of Rs.2,11,338.75 on 2/3-10- 89 and the serious loss to the Corporation and failed to take proper safety steps for safe custody of the cash which is misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (xxxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to ensure that the window doors of the cash room are bolted inside which is misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (xix) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having had the duplicate key of the cash room of DC(E) of Narasapuram Depot with him for which there is no provision which is a misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” Then the 1st respondent submitted his explanation. However, as the Disciplinary Authority thought that the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was ordered and then the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 4.5.1990 holding that the charges levelled against the 1st respondent were proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of withholding of annual increments with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension as not on duty. The appeal filed by the 1st respondent was rejected. Then he approached the labour Court. The Labour Court, on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent was working under DC (E) and that the cash was kept in the box as per the instructions of the Depot Clerk and that admittedly, the Depot Clerk informed that there was no space in the iron safe and in the above circumstances, the 1st respondent cannot be held responsible for keeping the cash in the box. It is also observed that the 1st respondent has acted upon the instructions of the Depot Clerk, who was his superior. So the question of informing his superior does not arise. The Labour Court also observed that there is no evidence to show that the 1st respondent was responsible for keeping the windows of the Depot Clerk’s room closed and that he failed to close the windows and doors on that day. It was also observed that the Depot Clerk handed over the key of that room to the 1st respondent as per the prevailing usual practice and in the above circumstances, the charges levelled against the 1st respondent was not proved. Aggrieved by the same, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narasapuram filed this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Award passed by the labour Court is bad in law and that the 1st respondent was negligent in not closing the windows and doors and there was no warranting circumstances to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Management. I have gone through the entire record and also the Award of the labour Court, the findings of the labour Court cannot be said to be perverse. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was working as an Assistant to the Depot Clerk (E) and that he had to act as per the instructions of the Depot Clerk (E). Admittedly, the Depot Clerk is his superior officer and the cash was kept in the box as per the instructions of the Depot Clerk as there was no space in the iron safe, since the Depot Clerk was his superior, the question of informing to some other superior does not arise. The findings of the labour Court that there is no evidence on record to show that the 1st respondent keeping the widows and doors closed, cannot be interfered with. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the labour Court and cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse. In view of the same, I hold that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:27.01.2011 mrb