IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6211 of 1999 Between: Sri G.K.Chetty, S/o. G.Muthappa Chetty, Palamaneru Depot, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. 2 The A.P.S.T.R.C., Rep. by its The Regional Manager, Nellore. (Note:- Cause titles amended as per the Court Order dt.22-4-99 and Rs.100 paid on 26-4-99 them DD.No.5724) 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its The Divisional Manager, Chittoor. (Note:- Cause titles amended as per the Court Order dt.22-4-99 and Rs.100 paid on 26-4-99 them DD.No.5724) 4 The A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep. by its The Depot Manager, Palamaneru, Chittoor District. (Note:- Cause titles amended as per the Court Order dt.22-4-99 and Rs.100 paid on 26-4-99 them DD.No.5724) .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for all the connected records including the award in I.D.No. 26 of 1996 dated 27-3-1998 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur and quash the same insofar as the award in confirming the deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits including monetary and seniority and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ananthapur, in I.D.No.26 of 1996 dated 27-03-1998, the workman has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute referred for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), was as under: “Whether the action of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore is justified in imposing the punishment of deduction of pay by five incremental stages to Sri G.K.Chetty, E.60368, Driver for a period of three years with cumulative effect? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?” The petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 12-04-1985, wherein he was alleged to have stayed away from performing his duties for 77 days, during the period from 06-09-1984 to 30-11-1984, by way of taking leave for four days and sick leave for 73 days and, thereby, absented himself causing dislocation of services, which constitutes misconduct under Reg No.23(xxviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. On the charge being held established in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service on 01-11-1985 and the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority, in his order dated 24-07-1986. The reviewing authority, in his order dated 25-06-1987, directed reinstatement of the petitioner but reduced his pay to 5 incremental stages for a period of 3 years, which would have an effect on future increments permanently, and directed that the intervening period from the date of removal from service till the date of reporting for duty, shall be treated as not on duty. In its award, the Tribunal noted that the counsel appearing on behalf of the workman neither questioned the validity of the domestic enquiry during the course of the arguments nor had they challenged the findings of the enquiry officer. The Tribunal also noted that the counsel for the workman did not question the order of the reviewing authority in directing the intervening period from the date of removal from service till the date of reporting to duty to be treated as not on duty and that he had only questioned the punishment of deferment of five increments as being in violation of the orders of the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, vide circular dated 20-09-1988, whereunder it was directed that the punishment of deferment of increments by more than two stages should not be imposed as a matter of routine, and that the proved offence on the part of an employee did not warrant removal from service but warranted deferment of increments or reduction of pay by not more than two incremental stages in a single case. The Tribunal agreed with the submission, more so, because, no such circumstances had been assigned by the reviewing authority to award the impugned punishment and held that the Regional Manager, Nellore, was not justified in awarding the impugned punishment and modified the punishment to that of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner, for the first time before this Court, that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated and that, without a regular enquiry being held, the respondents had imposed a severe penalty on the petitioner. Petitioner would further contend that it was not a case of unauthorized absence and that the respondents had failed to take into account the leave applications, which he had submitted from time to time. None of these contentions merit acceptance. A perusal of the award would show that the counsel for the petitioner, had, in fact, chosen not to question the validity of the domestic enquiry. It is not open to the petitioner, for the first time before this Court in certiorari proceedings, to question the validity of the domestic enquiry or to contend that the punishment imposed was not justified in the absence of a regular enquiry being held. The other contention, with regards the petitioner submitting his leave applications, is a matter of evidence and since no evidence was adduced on behalf of the workman before the Tribunal, such a contention cannot be examined, for the first time, in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Viewed from any angle, the impugned award does not necessitate interference. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:16.04.2008 usd To 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.T.R.C., Nellore. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Chittoor. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Palamaneru, Chittoor District. 4 Two CD copies