IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1813 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/09/2007 in WP NO : 1482 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: S.Lachaiah, E-320013, Conductor, S/o.Bhumaiah, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar -II Depot, Karimnagar District. 3 The Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court rep.by its Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1813 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by order, dated 17.09.2007 in WP No.1482 of 2005, the present writ appeal is filed by the appellant-writ petitioner. The appellant, who is the applicant in I.D.No.84 of 2003, filed W.P.No.1482 of 2005 challenging the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.84 of 2003, where under punishment of removal was confirmed. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Sohan Lal[1] AND Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane [2] , wherein it is held that once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally, it is not open to the Appellate Tribunals and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence alleged against the appellant and therefore, a direction may be issued to reconsider the case of the appellant. On a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the appellant was previously censured for seven times, annual increments were deferred for nine times and he was removed from service for cash and ticket irregularities on one occasion and reinstated in terms of the orders of the appellate tribunal and now, since serious cash and ticket irregularities were noticed, an enquiry was conducted and was removed from service. In view of the earlier events coupled with the present facts and circumstances of the case, the removal of the appellant from service, is proper and would not amount amount to disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the previous conduct of the appellant, we feel that the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice C.V. Nargarjuna Reddy Dated: 19th February, 2009 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO :1813 of 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 19th February, 2009 [1] (2004) 8 SCC 218 [2] 2005(3) SCC 254