IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.293 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20.06.2007 in W.P. No.24358 of 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: S.H.Ahmed, S/o.Syed Mir, R/o.H.No.7-59, Alladurg Post, Andole Tq, Medak District .....Appellant And 1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narayankhed Depot, Medak District. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri Challa Sivasankar Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri V. Padmanabha Rao for Smt. B.G. Umadevi. The Court passed the following : JUDGMENT: (per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.24358 of 1998, dated 20th June, 2007, this appeal has been filed by a Conductor. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under: The appellant – Conductor was removed from service by an order dated 7th October, 1994. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the appellant had filed departmental appeal, but as he could not succeed in the appeal, ultimately, he had approached the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By an award dated 3rd February, 1997, the Labour Court had directed reinstatement without back wages. Being aggrieved by the award, the respondent – employer had filed Writ Petition No.24358 of 1998, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed by the Conductor – workman. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the following charges had been levelled against him in the departmental proceedings. The charges are: “1) For having re-issued the ticket Nos.021/836333 and 334 of Rs.8.50ps. denomination for a passenger who boarded your bus at CBS and bound for Rampoor, ex-stages No.33 to 6 the above said ticket were already accounted in the SR which were issued in the up- journey at stage No.9 of SR No.A2/2529601, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Hence, confiscated the above said from the passenger and SR from the Conductor and issued new SR No.A2/3614501. 2) For having re-issued the ticket No.082/853819 of Rs.6/ - denomination for the same passenger who boarded the CBS and bound for Rampoor, ex-stages, No.33 to 6, the above said ticket was already accounted in SR at stage No.19 in the up-journey, which constitutes serious misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 3) For having misbehaved the checking officials by instigating the passengers and prevented the checking officials to complete the formalities which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(viii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4) For having forcibly snatched the tickets bearing No.021/836333 and 863334 of Rs.8.50ps. denomination, 082/853819 of Rs.6.00 denomination, from checking officials and torn them into pieces to destroy the evidences, which constitutes serious misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 5) For having threatened to kill the checking officials if you are going to suspend in the case, which is serious misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” In the departmental proceedings, the charges have been proved. The Labour Court found that the enquiry officer’s findings are unassailable. Thus, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges have been rightly proved. In spite of the said fact, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal was excessive and, therefore, ordered reinstatement of the appellant without back wages. When the award was challenged before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned Advocates and upon perusal of the award, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the appellant were quite severe. Looking to the gravity of the charges, the Labour Court ought not to have passed an order with regard to reinstatement. According to the learned Single Judge, as all the charges referred to hereinabove, which are serious in nature, were validly established during the domestic enquiry, there was no legitimate reason for the Labour Court to reduce the punishment of removal and the interference of the Labour Court was not justified. In the circumstances, the award was set aside by the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned Advocates and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the award passed by the Labour Court. We have also seen the service record of the appellant. We find that several punishments have been inflicted upon the appellant in the past. Even after the order of removal, the appellant had been punished on certain occasions after his reinstatement. In fact, he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities on three occasions. Looking to the aforesaid service record and the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the Labour Court should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment after coming to the conclusion that the departmental enquiry had been validly held. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 1st April, 2008 R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. ….REGISTRAR To 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. 2. Two copies to Government Pleader for Labour, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 3. Two C.D. copies. ARS