IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1330 of 2008 Between: M.N. Rao S/o.M. Chandraiah R/o. 18-50, RTC Colony, Shadnagar,Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC , Shadnagar Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC , Mahabubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Labour Court -III, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for respondents 2 and 3: MR V.PADMANABHA RAO FOR MRS.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for respondent No.3:AGP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 29-06-2007 in I.D. No.38 of 2006 on the file of Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel representing Smt B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner was a Conductor of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. While conducting the bus on route from Kosgi-Hyderabad, on 12-04-2005, the checking officials of the Corporation exercised check of the bus at Kurukunta Stage 20/19 and issued a charge memo to the petitioner containing certain allegations. Later on, charge sheet was issued to him with the following charges. 1. For having failed to observe the rule “Issue a start” which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.21.00 from two batches I total passengers 7 @ Rs.3.00 each at boarding point itself NWPT to Kurukunta, ex-stages 20 to 20-19 and issued tickets to passengers vide bearing No.371/912292 to 293, 371/912264, 391/912920 to 922 and document No.0223900048 dated 12.04.2005 at Stage No.29 on route Kosgi to Hyderabad and remaining tickets were shown in the trip of 6.30 hours from Ahadnagar to Kosgi, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having possessed deno. of Rs.3.00 tickets bearing No.371/912294, 381/912916 and Rs.4.00 deno. ticket bearing No.863/403804 and 863/400729 to 732 in your cash bag without any valid reason, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.1963. 4. For having non-cooperated with the checking officials while recording the statements of the passengers at the time of check on 12-04-2005, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, domestic enquiry was held. On the basis of the enquiry report, wherein the petitioner was found guilty of all the four charges, a show cause notice was issued, and considering the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.1 removed him from service vide his proceedings dated 17-08-2005. The appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 ended in dismissal. Later, he raised industrial dispute vide I.D. No.38 of 2006, before Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The Labour Court, confirmed the orders passed by the domestic Tribunal and the appellate authority and dismissed the industrial dispute. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In its award, the Labour Court framed the following three points. 1. Whether the domestic enquiry officer and the first respondent were justified in holding that the petitioner was guilty under the charges leveled against him? 2. Whether the punishment of removal from service, imposed on the petitioner was appropriate? 3. To what relief? Having considered the entire evidence on record, the Labour Court agreed with the findings of the domestic Tribunal. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and imposed a lesser punishment. I have not felt persuaded to accept his contention. From the very nature of the allegations contained in the charge sheet, and the findings recorded thereon, it is quite evident that the petitioner is guilty of a very serious misconduct and therefore, it cannot be said that penalty of removal from service is too disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any error either in the award of the Labour Court or in the orders passed by the domestic Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.1586 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd April, 2009 vrn