HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.2099 of 2002 ORDER:- Petitioner herein is Manager of Ramachandra Puram depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). The first respondent herein at the relevant time was working as Conductor in the said depot. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him on three charges which are as follows. “1.For having failed to show the way bill to the checking officials and caused inconvenience to the officials work and to escape the offences committed by you while you were conducting the vehicle No.AP-10Z-5842 on the route Drakshrama–Gangavathi on 8.11.98, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees' (conduct) Regulations, 1968. 2. For having stolen the SRs.No.A4/9460128 and 129 and used the same on 7.11.98 instead of SRs.No.9452033 and 034 supplied by the corporation for Drakshram-Gangavathi service duly opening the SR with additional already used tickets of Rs.40/-, 50/-, 70/- and Rs.100/- denomination to reissue the used tickets while you were conducting the above vehicle which constitutes misconduct in terms o regulation No.28(x) and (xxv) of APSRTC Employees' (conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having issued the used tickets which were sold and accounted in your earlier duties as detailed above and cheated the organisation towards an amount of Rs.3,270/- and swallowed the revenues of the Corporation, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(x) and (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees' (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 2. The first respondent submitted an application dated 27.11.1998 to the management of the APSRTC for supplying certain documents mentioned by him to give his explanation to the above charges, but the management did not supply the said documents and commenced the enquiry. The first respondent again made an application on 02.02.1999 to the enquiry officer requesting him to supply the documents but he too did not supply them and completed the enquiry. Thereafter the concerned authority after considering the deposition of the first respondent removed him from service by its order dated 13.07.1999. It is seen that without availing the statutory appeal the first respondent straightaway raised an industrial dispute i.e. I.D.No.149 of 1999 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, questioning the removal order. 3. The said tribunal after considering the matter in detail has by its Award dated 21.09.2001 concluded that no proper opportunity was given to the first respondent and in that view of the matter it ordered his reinstatement with attendant benefits and directed the authorities to conduct a de novo enquiry. It is questioning that Award the petitioner/ management has filed this writ petition. 4. A perusal of the Award would show that the tribunal has set out the above charges which are framed against the first respondent, his pleas in respect of the charges and also the documents requested by him. It then held that charge No.1 is based on the admission on the part of the first respondent in his spot explanation but concluded that failure to show the waybill to the checking officials is not such a serious aspect so as to warrant the punishment of removal from service and to that extent it held in favour of the first respondent. It then considered charges 2 and 3 and discussed about certain documents and concluded that the non-supply of the documents requested for by the first respondent vitiated the enquiry in respect of those charges and in that view of the matter it set aside the order of removal on the ground that the enquiry is vitiated due to denial of fair opportunity to the first respondent. In that view of the matter it remanded the matter back to the management directing it to hold a fresh enquiry after giving copies of the documents requested for by the first respondent and after receiving explanation. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner argued at length about the merits of the matter and pointed out that the documents in question could have been perused by the first respondent to submit his explanation. He also argued that non- supply of documents have not resulted in any prejudice or disabled the first respondent from submitting an explanation. 6. The tribunal discussed this aspect and concluded that the non-supply of the relevant documents has vitiated the enquiry. The tribunal did not give any categorical finding either one way or the other on charges 2 and 3. Now in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution this court cannot interfere with the above conclusion of the tribunal unless it is shown to be unreasonable. A perusal of the Award of the tribunal would show that it cannot be said to be unreasonable. It should be noted that the tribunal did not give a clean chit to the first respondent but only remanded the matter directing the management to hold a fresh enquiry. In view of this I am of the opinion that this court should not interfere in the matter. The argument that the petitioner did not avail statutory remedy cannot also have any significance because of the remand order passed by the tribunal. 7. Apart from the above circumstances, Sri S.A.Razzak, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, stated across the bar that the first respondent retired from service on 31.12.2003 and this is not disputed. As on today more than 7½ years have elapsed from the date of his retirement. This is in my opinion an added circumstance which weighs against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons this writ petition is dismissed and it shall be open for the petitioner to comply with the direction of the tribunal by giving sufficient opportunity to the first respondent in accordance with the rules. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 2nd August 2011 CVRK