IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 968 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14/09/2006 in WP NO : 25621 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Nomula Narasaiah S/o. Veeraiah C/o. G. Srinivasa Reddy, Opp:Bomma Jaggaiah Mill Bonakal Road, Khammam District-507001. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Depot Manager, APSRTC., KhammamDepot, Khammam. 2 The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : SMT.S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 14th September 2006 passed in writ petition No.25621 off 2003, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner–Conductor working in the respondent-Corporation. By an order dated 12th April 2001, the appellant had been removed from service because of serious charges levelled against him had been proved in the departmental proceedings. The appellant did not issue tickets to passengers and closed the tray well in advance. As the charges had been proved, he was removed from service. The order of removal was challenged in appeal, but the appeal had been dismissed. Ultimately, the appellant approached the Labour Court, but there also he could not succeed. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, he filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been rejected, and, therefore, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent–Corporation. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that this is not a case of misappropriation of any amount, and therefore, the punishment of removal could not have been inflicted upon the appellant. It has been further submitted by the learned advocate that the respondent–Corporation should have due sympathy, and if possible, should offer fresh appointment to the appellant as a Conductor. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, and more particularly in view of concurrent findings arrived at against the appellant, in our opinion, it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere with the order of removal. As the charges have been proved in the departmental proceedings and validity of the inquiry proceedings has also been upheld, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. It will be open to the appellant to make an application for fresh appointment to the post of Conductor or any other post and it will be open to the respondent–Corporation to consider the same. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 18th December 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr