THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.16879 OF 1999 AND 3656 OF 2000 COMMON ORDER Heard both the counsel. 2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same and the parties are common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.3656/2000 is one S.Krishna Murthy. He joined as clerk in the Yemmiganur Weaves Co-operative Production and Sales Society, Yemmiganur. The society is the petitioner in W.P.No.16879/1999. The said Krishna Murthty, will be referred to as ‘the petitioner’ and the petitioner in W.P.No.6879/1999 will be referred to as ‘the Society’. The petitioner was transferred by order dated 21.3.1994 to Srisailam. On the ground that he failed to obey the transfer orders, the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 25.6.1994 and the petitioner submitted his explanation and the 3rd respondent – Society, issued suspension order dated 13.10.1994. The petitioner along with union leaders, approached the Personal Officer, to revoke the suspension orders. Alleging that the petitioner manhandled the Personal Officer and abused him, the Society gave letter dated 29.10.1994 alleging him to show cause why action shall not be taken for the charges of (a) disobedience of transfer orders; (b) life threatening with dire consequences to the offices and (c) violation of standing orders. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted report and thereupon the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 20.12.1994 and considering the explanation of the petitioner, the petitioner was terminated from service and the society issued paper publication, terminating the services of the petitioner from 28.12.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Shop Appeal no.5/1995 before the Appellate Authority – Assistant Commisssioner of Labour, Adoni, Kurnool District – 2nd respondent. By order dated 9.5.1997 the petitioner was granted reinstatement with continuity of service, with 1/4th back wages. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, in not granting full back wages, the petitioner preferred second shop appeal in S.A.No.3/1998. Challenging the order of the first appellate authority, in granting reinstatement and 1/4th back wages, the management filed also filed second shop appeal in S.A.No.8/1998. By order dated 25.5.1999, 1st respondent – Second Appellate Authority under A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool, confirmed the order of the first appellate authority. Hence, the present writ petitions. 4. The charges against the petitioner are as under: (a) Disobedience of transfer order; (b) Life threatening with dire consequences to the officers; (c) Violation of the standing orders. 5. On considering the evidence of O.P.Ws.2 and 4, and the documentary evidence under Exs.A-2 and A-4, both the authorities below, have concurrently recorded finding of fact that above charges 1 and 3 as not proved against the petitioner. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this court, in the absence of any contra evidence. 6. Coming the only charge that is proved against the petitioner is with regard to his unruly behavior with the super officer. Both the authorities below, on considering the evidence of O.P.W.-1 to O.P.W.5, found that the action of the petitioner in entering into the glass chambers of the Personal Officer along with other workers and asking the staff to come out in protest, amounts to misconduct, which is to be discouraged. 7. As only charge no.2 is found to be proved and charges 1 and 3 ie., with regard to disobeying the transfer orders and violation of standing orders, were found to be not proved, the first appellate authority ordered reinstatement with continuity of service with 1/4th back wages. The second appellate authority on re-examination of the entire material evidence, found that there the lower authority after following the procedure as per the rules, has rightly came to the conclusion that the charges and 1 and 3 as not proved and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the first appellate authority. 8. On considering the entire material on record, I do find any justifiable ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and the judicious discretion exercised by the authorities below. Both the writ petitions are devoid of any merits and they are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------ 06—08—2010