THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO W.P.NO.23084 OF 2001 Between: B.Tata Rao ..petitioner Vs The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kothagudem and another …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO W.P.NO.23084 OF 2001 ORDER:- The petitioner herein was a conductor of the first respondent since 1994 and on 12-03-1997 when he was on route Kothagudem to Tekulagudem at stage No.3 checking officials exercised the check and found some irregularities and later framed the following charges:- 1) “For having failed to observe the rule “Issue and Start” which is a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 2) “For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of two passengers even after collecting the requisite fare at their boarding point itself found alighting without tickets at Anichettipally, having boarded your bus at Seetharampuram ex-stages 4 to 3, which is a misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 3) “For having had been cash excess by Rs. 25/- which is a misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 4) “For having failed to attest the passengers statement and failed to acknowledge the receipt of charge memo, which is a misconduct under Reg. (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and after consideration the explanation and material, the charges were held proved and the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an industrial dispute to the second respondent and the Tribunal after considering the evidence and material dismissed the claim and questioning the same the Writ Petition is filed for issuance of necessary directions in the nature of Certiorari and to declare that the actions are illegal and arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner challenges the order on the ground that his application was not considered and according to him he was attending to the passengers from rear to front and he did not touch the point under Charge No.2. Since one of the passengers who boarded at Sitharampuram picked up a quarrel and when he was trying to convince him, in the mean time, the bus reached the stage No. 3. The statement said to have been given by the passengers to the checking staff is not correct. Further more, the petitioner has got clean record and the order causes hardship. The first respondent filed a counter denying the allegations in the plaint. The claim of the petitioner that he has got clean record as disputed by the fact that he was censured three times, increments were deferred two times and suspended three times and removed from service three times. There are no irregularities committed in the disciplinary inquiry and proper opportunity was given and the explanation given by the petitioner for not issuing the tickets is belated. Therefore, the first respondent pleaded for the dismissal of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Industrial Tribunal and the disciplinary authority is not proper. It is to be noted that in this writ petition, the court is not inclined to go into the merits of the charge or the particulars of the evidence since the scope of redressal is less. The only scope available for consideration is whether there is any violation of principles of natural justice and whether the petitioner was denied any opportunity to defend. In fact, in the grounds of appeal, no such facts were mentioned and on the other hand the petitioner was represented by a representative on his side and in fact case law was also placed before the Tribunal. Evidently, the appreciation of evidence made by the disciplinary authority and the Industrial Tribunal is final and I do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion about the reasoned orders given by the lower authorities. The only question is whether the imposition of the punishment of removal is hardship and whether it can be interfered or not. Evidently, though the petitioner claims that he has got clean record, from the counter of the first respondent, there are several accusations against him of misconduct and the petitioner did not dispute the same. In such circumstances, and when there is repeated misconduct, it is not the pleasure of the employer to continue the employee in service. In this connection, the counsel for the first respondent relied upon a decision reported in Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma([1]) which clearly lays down that when misconduct is upheld there is no justification to order reinstatement. Therefore, keeping in view of the above principle, there are no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31-12-2010 TSNR [1] (2002) 10 SCC 330