IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3646 of 2000 Between: Polipalli Isaac S/o P. Premanandam C/o A. Abraham, D.No.40-13-93, Dharmanagar, Kancharpalem, Visakhapatnam-8. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rural Depot, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. 2 Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Visakhapatnam-16. 3 Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Visakhapatnam. .....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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Ceritiorari by calling for the records of the I.D.119/97 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court , Visakhapatnam, declaring the same as illegal, against the law, violative of article 14, 16 and 20 of the Constitution of India, consequently setting aside the same by directing Respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of services with backwages and all other benefits that are deemed fit and pass such other order or orders that are deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.K.CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the former Conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award, dated 7.10.1999, passed in I.D.No.119 of 1997 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 2. While the petitioner was working as a Conductor in the Visakhapatnam Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities, while conducting the bus bearing No. AAZ 4686 on the route in Street No.12 on 30.3.1985. When such cash ticket irregularities were noticed, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and he was charge sheeted by framing three charges. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under: 1. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 4 passengers who boarded the bus at Visakhapatnam city bus station and bound for Old Gajuwaka ex-stages 2 to 10 even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.6.80 ps which is a misconduct under Reg.28(Vi (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of three passengers who boarded the bus at Visakhapatnam City bus station along with 3 bags of rice containing 25 Kgs each and bound for Old Gajuwaka ex-stages 2 to 10 after collecting of Rs.1.70 ps each and Rs.1/- towards luggage fare which is a misconduct under Reg.28(Via) of APSRTC Employee’s (Conduct) Regulation 1963”. 3. “For having closed the ticket tray number of all denominations against the stage No.7 without completing ticket issues which is a mis-conduct under Regulation, 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Rules,1963”. 3. When the petitioner has denied the above said charges in his explanation, a regular enquiry was conducted as per the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has submitted his report by recording a finding to the effect that all the three charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Based on such findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was removed from service. Though the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal, his appeal was rejected by the Divisional Manager. 4. Thereafter, he raised an Industrial Dispute and on failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Tribunal, by the Government under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the same was tried in I.D.No.119/97 before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, no further oral evidence was let in by either of the parties, but documentary evidence was marked only on behalf of the management in Exs.M.1 to M.14. The Tribunal, having considered the evidence on record, has ordered the reference against the workman. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he has not collected any fare from the passengers, as alleged in the charges leveled against him, but in spite of the same, the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding against him, contrary to the evidence on record. It is also stated that he has not collected the fare for the rice bags, but in spite of the same, findings were recorded against him. 6. I have perused the copy of the enquiry report dated 17.7.1985 prepared by the Enquiry Officer. To substantiate the first charge, namely, that the petitioner has failed to issue tickets to a batch of four passengers boarded at Visakhapatnam City bus station, bound to Old Gajuwaka even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.6.80 ps, one of the passengers, namely Sri Dharma Rao from the group of four passengers, was examined, who has clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that he has paid Rs.6.80 ps at the boarding point itself, and in spite of the same, the Conductor did not issue tickets to him. Though the said passenger has deposed in support of the said charge, he was not cross-examined to elicit anything in support of the defence taken by the petitioner. Even with regard to the second charge, a passenger by name Sri Dali Naidu of Vizianagaram was examined, who also deposed to the effect that he was one amongst the batch of three passengers, who were traveling from RTC complex to Gajuwaka, and that he paid Rs.7/- to the Conductor at RTC complex itself towards the fare for three passengers in their batch, and also luggage fare for two units of chargeable luggage but in spite of the same, the Conductor did not issue tickets to them. Even with reference to the third charge, it is not in dispute that the check has taken place even before passing stage No.7, but in spite of the same, the petitioner has already closed the SR, without issuing tickets to the passengers, who boarded the bus at the earlier stages. From the charges leveled, and the evidence on record, it is a clear case that the petitioner/ delinquent/ employee has defrauded the revenue of the corporation, by not issuing tickets to the passengers despite collecting fare from them. When the inquiry Officer has recorded a finding to the effect that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved as per the evidence available on record, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has not collected fare from the passengers and did not issue tickets to them, cannot be accepted. As much as the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which resulted in passing of removal order, are in consonance with the evidence on record, the same can neither be said perverse nor illegal, so as to interfere with the order of removal, as confirmed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal also, even in the absence of any further evidence other than the evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer, has reappreciated the same and has approved the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that as per the service record, by now, the petitioner has attained the age of super annuation. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, calling for interference in the order of removal, as confirmed by the appellate authority and further approved by the Labour court. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th February, 2009 PNV