IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3306 of 2002 Between: K.V.D. Kumar S/o K. Prabhu Rao R/o Gopayapalli Post, Proddatur Talu, Rajupalem Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Badvel Depot, Cuddapah District. .....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 to issue an order or direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calling the entire records from the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur and quash the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.172/98, dt. 27-1-2000 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the Annual increments to the petitioner w.e.f. 10-3-1989 with arrears and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.B.MALLESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SRAVAN} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3306 of 2002 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner, who is working as a ‘Welder’ in the 2nd respondent depot, is that he was issued a charge sheet dated 10-03-1989 stating that he had abused the Incharge Security Head Guard and Mechanical Foreman at 15.00 hours near the Security Branch in an intoxicated condition. Pursuant to the said charge memo, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. At the time of enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of either of the parties. The impugned order was passed deferring the annual increments of the petitioner for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect besides treating the suspension order as ‘not duty’. Questioning the same, the petitioner ﬁled I.D.No.172 of 1998. After conducting the enquiry, the learned Presiding Oﬃcer, Industrial Labour Court, Anantapur, passed an award, dated 27-01-2000, dismissing the I.D. Aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The 2nd respondent-Depot Manager, ﬁled a rejoinder stating that the facts mentioned in the claim petition are false and untenable and the claimant is subjected to strict proof of all the allegations made in the claim statement. The petitioner was working as a Welder in the Badvel, A.P.S.R.T.C. Depot. The Security Head Guard, Badvel, A.P.S.R.T.C. Depot, reported that on 02-03-1989 at about 15-00 hours, the petitioner abused him and one Mechanical Foreman, in an un-parliamentary language, in an intoxicated condition. The Traﬃc Inspector, Grade-II, had conducted preliminary enquiry into the case and submitted a report to the 2nd respondent. The ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer are that the petitioner misbehaved towards the complainants by using vulgar language in an intoxicated condition. Based on the same, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and therefore, after conducting enquiry, the proceedings were issued. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge leveled against the petitioner is a false. Either in the domestic enquiry or before the Labour Court, no material witnesses viz., the Security Head Guard or Mechanical Foreman were examined. No medical test was conducted to prove the alleged intoxicated condition. The Enquiry Oﬃcer gave a ﬁnding that the charge levelled against the workman was proved. It was also his case that without verifying the material on record, the Enquiry Oﬃcer passed an illegal, invalid and unjust order. The charge is false and baseless, and therefore, the enquiry initiated against the petitioner was not properly conducted as there is no evidence on record. Simply, the authorities have passed the impugned order imposing the punishment of postponing the annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension order as not duty. Therefore, he requested to set aside the order of the Labour Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents contended that after conducting full enquiry, before the authorities concerned, the impugned order was passed. He further submitted that it is a case of imposing the punishment by the authorities and the same was rightly conﬁrmed by the Labour Court and therefore, no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. As seen from the record, it appears that the petitioner was the welder in A.P.S.R.T.C., Badvel Depot. While discharging his duties, he was issued charge sheet on 10-03-1989. The charge sheet reads as follows: “For having abused the Security Head Guard and Mechanical Foreman in vulgar language in an intoxicated condition on 02-03-1989 at about 15-00 hours, at Security Branch Room, while on duty which constitutes a serious misconduct in terms of Regulations 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 7. In the preliminary enquiry made against the petitioner and during the course of trial before the Labour Court, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence, but he failed to adduce any evidence. However, the Labour Court after considering the entire material available on record, came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the authorities was found to be proportionate to the charge established against the petitioner. No speciﬁc grounds have been raised to show that the enquiry conducted by the Labour Court was not properly done and no opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is also not the case that the principles of natural justice have been violated. In the absence of the same, I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁcation to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The impugned order was passed with cogent and convincing reasons. It does not call for interference by this Court by exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ July 16, 2008 kvr