IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18624 of 1999 Between: 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Managing Director, Musherabad, Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Narayanakhed Depot, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Sri D.Nagender, Conductor, E.252167, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Zaheerabad, Medak District. 2 Labour Court-II, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, especially in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award, dt. 27.8.98 made in I.D.No. 74/95, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad published on 28.9.98 setting aside the order of removal of the 1st Respondent dt. 19.2.1991 and directing his reinstatement into services with continuity of services and attendant benefits and 50% of back wages, and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction, and pass such other order or orders just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18624 of 1999 ORAL ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”) challenging the validity of the Award, dated 27-08-1998, in I.D.No.74 of 1995, passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Labour Court”). 2. The first respondent herein was working as Conductor in the Corporation attached to Narayankhed Depot, Medak District. While he was conducting the bus, bearing No.1859 on the route Ramayampet to Kalher, a check was exercised by the checking officials of the Corporation at about 21-25 hrs. on 08-08-1990 at Stage No.8/7. At the time of inspection, having noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities, a charge memo was issued to the first respondent to which he filed an explanation. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the first respondent, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent and a charge sheet was issued to him on 22-08-1990, framing two charges, which are as under: “1) For having failed to punch the tickets bearing Nos.366/182890 954 of Rs.2-75 ps. den. which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2) For having failed to account the Tray Nos. from 366/182850 to 855 of Rs.2-75 ps. den. in the SR bearing No.50-2877912 even though the petitioner issued said tickets at stage No.11 from stages Nos.10 to 7 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 3. When the first respondent denied the charges levelled against him, a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, who enquired into the matter in the domestic enquiry proceedings, submitted his report recording a finding that the charges levelled against the first respondent are proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, an order, dated 19-02-1991, was passed removing the first respondent from the service of the Corporation. Though the first respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority of the Corporation i.e., the Divisional Manager, Sangareddy, the same was dismissed on 31-12-1991. On review, the revisional authority i.e., Regional Manager, Medak at Sangareddy, also rejected the review petition on 30-01-1995. 4. Questioning the validity of the order of removal, the first respondent has raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947 in I.D.No.74 of 1995 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, by the impugned Award, dated 27-08-1998, while setting the order of removal, dated 19-02-1991, directed for reinstatement of the first respondent into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but with 50 per cent of backwages only. Aggrieved by the same the Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 6. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that as much as the tickets, which were seized, were not punched, the misconduct alleged against the first respondent is proved. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the tickets were not punched with the oblique motive to re-collect the said tickets so as to re-issue the same to defraud the revenue of the Corporation. 7. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the Labour Court, after re-appreciation of the evidence on record, had come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the first respondent are not proved. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as much as valid and cogent reasons are recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned Award, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. Looking at the charges framed against the first respondent in the disciplinary proceedings, it is the case of the Corporation that the first respondent, though issued tickets, had not punched the tickets, bearing Nos.366/182849 to 854 of Rs.2-75 ps denomination and failed to account ticket Nos.366/182850 to 855 of Rs.2-75 ps denomination in the statistical return, having issued the said tickets at Stage No.11. The defence putforth by the first respondent in the domestic enquiry proceedings and also before the Labour Court is that he was not provided with Nipper and he punched the tickets with the help of Ball Pen and the punch might not appeared in all the tickets. He also pleaded that there was no proper printing of the tickets and due to poor illumination in the bus, he could not make correct entries in the SR. The Labour Court, having regard to the defence of the first respondent, had noticed that on the tickets, which were seized by the checking officials of the Corporation, produced before it, there was no proper printing of its numbers and the numbers were not legible. It is also to be noticed that the passengers, who were issued such tickets and who are travelling from Stage Nos.11 to 7 and, as a fact, even as per the version of the checking officials, all these tickets were in possession of the passengers, who were to alight at Stage No.7. The plea of the first respondent that he was not provided with Nipper is also not disputed. 9. In view of the nature of the charges levelled against the first respondent and the evidence on record, the Labour Court has recorded its finding to the effect that there was no material before the Enquiry Officer so as to record a finding that the said tickets were not punched only with an oblique motive to re-collect the same. In view of the defence of the first respondent, the Labour Court re-appreciated the evidence on record and found that there was no material in support of the charges so as to impose the extreme penalty of removal from service. 10. Having regard to the nature of charges, the evidence on record and also the findings recorded by the Labour Court, it cannot be said that the said findings are either perverse or illegal, warranting interference by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Though it is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the charge of not punching is not a trivial charge, is there any supporting material in proof of the same is a matter to be examined with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the defence putforth by the employee. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18624 of 1999 20-11-2008 Msr