IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 21656 of 1999 Between: APSRTC, rep. by its Depot Manager, Falaknuma Depot, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri A. Dayanand R/o. H.No. 18-3-463/1/123/A, Shivajinagar, Outside Laldarwaza, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from 1st respondent in I.D.No.31 of 1998 dt. 11.03.99 published in G.O.Rt.No.759 dt. 28.4.1999 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Labour Court - I, Hyderabad i.e. 1st respondent herein and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioner :K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent : MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 21656 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), through its Depot Manager, Falaknuma Depot, Hyderabad, questioning the award dated 11th March 1999, passed in I.D.No.31 of 1998, by the Labour Court – I, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent herein is working as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation. When he was conducting the bus on 16th May 1994, a check was exercised at Stage No.2 (Aliyabad). On the ground that during such inspection and check, certain cash and ticket irregularities were noticed, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. It is appropriate to refer to the charges as framed against the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings, which read as under : “1. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to three passengers (batch) (two female and one male) found alighting without tickets at Aliyabad who boarded the bus at Charminar ex- stages 1 to 2.” 2. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to 10 passengers of whom a batch of 6 passengers (4 ladies and two chargeable children) and four individual passengers found travelling without tickets from Charminar to Chasma ex- stages 1 to 3.” 3. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to ﬁve passengers found travelling without tickets from Charminar to Vattepally ex-stages 1 to ¾ (three passengers) and two passengers from Charminar to Katedhan X roads ex-stages 1 to 5. 4. For having failed to complete the ticket issues neither within one fare stage nor TIC. 5. For having closed the S.R. of Rs.0.75 Ps., 1.00 and 1.25 Ps., denomination against stage No.2 and remaining denominations were not closed.” 3. Though the respondent has ﬁled his explanation denying the aforesaid charges levelled against him, but however, based on the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer in the domestic inquiry, an order of removal was passed on 9th August 1994, removing him from service. The said order of removal was also conﬁrmed by the appellate authority vide orders dated 31st of March 1995, in the departmental appeal preferred by the respondent. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the Industrial Tribunal by ﬁling an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in I.D.No.31 of 1998. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was let in on behalf of either of the parties, but however, documentary evidence in Exs.M-1 to M-13 were marked on behalf of the management. The Tribunal, after re- appreciating the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the respondent were not proved, and therefore, it has ordered for reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service, with backwages and attendant benefits. 4. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation that merely because the Driver on duty was not examined, the Tribunal ought not have recorded a ﬁnding that the charges levelled against the respondent were not proved. It is submitted that the Tribunal has misread Charge Nos.1, 2 and 3, and recorded a ﬁnding that the respondent was not at fault, and that he has not committed any misconduct. It is submitted that having regard to number of passengers from whom the fare was not collected and tickets were not issued, the Tribunal ought not have awarded full backwages while ordering reinstatement of the respondent. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that inspite of holding that the domestic inquiry is valid, it is always open for the Tribunal to re- appreciate the evidence on record. It is submitted that having re-appreciated the evidence on record vis-à-vis the explanation oﬀered by the respondent-workman, the Tribunal has recorded ﬁndings with convincing reasons and found that no charge is proved against the respondent. It is submitted that asmuch as there is no illegality in the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal, there are no grounds to interfere with the award of the Tribunal in this writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In this case, it is to be noted that though altogether ﬁve charges are framed against the respondent, in three of the charges, the allegation is that he has failed to collect fare from some of the passengers and also failed to issue tickets to them. In charge Nos.1, 2 and 3, it is alleged that from a total number of 18 passengers, fare was not collected by the respondent, and tickets were also not issued to them. With respect to the said charges, it is categorically stated in the explanation submitted by the respondent, and also in his deposition recorded in the domestic inquiry, that on that date, there was a traﬃc jam at TIC Point, and in that view of the matter, the Police did not allow them to stop the bus. It is the case of the respondent-workman that at one stage, the inspection was done even when the passengers were boarding the bus while it was moving slowly. Having regard to the said defence, the Tribunal has noted that the best witness to be examined on behalf of the management was only the Driver of the bus, who can speak about the truth or otherwise of the defence taken by the respondent-workman, but in the absence of any such evidence from the Driver on duty, the Tribunal has rightly believed the version of the respondent- Conductor. Further, from the evidence on record, the Tribunal has noticed that altogether there were about 63 passengers in the bus, out of whom, the respondent- Conductor has issued tickets to 33 passengers and checked 12 pass-holders, and as such, there was no reason that can be attributed to the respondent for not issuing tickets to the remaining 18 passengers, by not collecting fare from them. On appreciating the evidence on record and taking into account the contention of the respondent-Conductor that in view of traﬃc jam, the Police did not allow them to stop the bus, the Tribunal has found that charge Nos.1, 2 and 3 are not proved. 7. Even with reference to charge No.4 that the respondent has failed to complete the ticket issue within one fare stage, the Tribunal has categorically found that the very same reasoning and defence put- forth by the respondent-Conductor to the eﬀect that as he was not allowed to stop the bus in view of traﬃc jam, and as the inspection was done even before one fare stage he could not follow such condition, can be taken into account with reference to this charge also. And further, with reference to charge No.5 also, the Tribunal has recorded a ﬁnding that with regard to certain denominations, S.R. must have been closed on account of instructions issued by the inspecting officials. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons recorded by the Tribunal for not accepting the charges levelled against the respondent, cannot be said to be perverse. Apart from this, in the petition ﬁled under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, it is categorically stated by the respondent-Conductor that on the above said date, there was an inspection by the concerned Transport Minister along with the local M.L.As., and in that view of the matter, there was a traﬃc jam at the TIC point, and the checking inspection was done before reaching one fare stage thereafter. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in recording the ﬁndings that it has recorded. 9. Upon perusal of the material on record, and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, I am convinced that the ﬁndings recorded are in conformity with the evidence on record. Though the domestic inquiry was held to be valid, it is always open for the Tribunal to re- appreciate the evidence on record and come to a diﬀerent conclusion, contrary to the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer. It is not known as to on what basis the inquiry oﬃcer has recorded a ﬁnding against the respondent, and no such copy of the inquiry oﬃcer’s report is ﬁled before this Court, and in the absence of such report, I do not ﬁnd any merit in this writ petition. It is also to be noticed that no fare was collected by the respondent-Conductor from the passengers to whom tickets were not issued. In that view of the matter also, it cannot be said that the respondent-Conductor has got the intention of misappropriating the amount. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal, warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th September 2008 ajr.