THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2388 of 2005 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-A.P.State Road Transport Corporation. 2. This writ petition is directed against an Award made by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.205 of 2000, dated 24.10.2002, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner-workman under Section 2(A)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act”) seeking to set aside the order, dated 22.1.2000, passed by the respondent Corporation removing him from service for having produced a fake Driving Licence and obtained employment, was rejected. 3. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the service of the 2nd respondent Corporation with effect from 10.5.1996 at Tirupati Depot-I. After his appointment, the Vigilance and Security Officer, Nellore Zone, on verification of the driving licence produced by the petitioner with the R.T.O., Chennai, found the same to be a fake one and thus the petitioner obtained employment by cheating the organization. Accordingly, the following charges were framed. 1. For having produced the Bogus driving licence No.536/84 and joined in the Corporation as Driver Gr.II which constitutes misconduct as per Reg.28 (xxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having concealed the fact and cheated the Corporation for seeking employment in APSRTC which constitutes misconduct as per Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he had undergone training as a driver at Madras and obtained driving licence bearing No.536/84 issued by the Assistant Licensing Authority, Madras (North). It was valid to drive the vehicles of goods and vehicles of heavy passenger motor and it was renewed at R.T.O. Office, Madras (North) upto 1990 and after coming to his native place duly taking NOC from the R.T.O., Madras (North), the same was renewed at Tirupati R.T.O. Office. He further stated that his licence was issued by the R.T.O., Chennai (North), but it was verified with the R.T.O., Chennai (East) and the Security staff did not proceed to the correct office and did not collect the correct information. However, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a domestic enquiry was ordered and in the said domestic enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent (P) was examined on behalf of the management and on the basis of the statement made by him, the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charges and he was issued with a show cause notice and after completing the formalities, he was dismissed from service on 26.7.2000. 5. The petitioner, however, raised a dispute under Section 2(A)2 of the Act before the Labour Court, Anantapur. The Labour Court, after an elaborate consideration of the entire material placed before it, came to the conclusion that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner and it did not find any irregularity in conducting of enquiry or the procedure followed by the management in passing the order of removal and accordingly rejected the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Insofar as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the R.T.O., Chennai (North) had issued the driving licence, but it was verified with the R.T.O., Chennai (East) and the Security staff did not proceed to the correct office, the Labour Court categorically gave a finding stating that there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that the Security staff gathered information from the R.T.A. (East) when the licence was issued by the R.T.O., Chennai (North) since the R.T.O., Chennai (North) office has been shifted to the East to the main building and has been converted as Assistant Licensing Authority (East) and the Assistant Licensing Authority, Chennai (East) is the proper authority, with which the verification was made. 7. Apart from the above, petitioner availed the opportunity provided to him by Circular, dated 31.8.2000, permitting those who are similarly placed drivers to obtain fresh licence and to apply for fresh appointment. The petitioner obtained fresh licence and was appointed again as Driver. Having availed the lenience shown by the respondent Corporation under the above Circular, it is not proper on his part to again allege that the Corporation has not properly conducted the enquiry and, as such, the removal order passed earlier cannot be sustained under law. 8. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 03.06.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2388 of 2005 03.06.2010 (Msr)