IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.924 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18.04.2007 in W.P.No.2077 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court) Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad-II Depot, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANT AND 1 R.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, C/o. Rama Krishna, 4-8-691, Near C B S ., Ram Mandhir Road, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Presiding Officer, The Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.G.VIDYA SAGAR The Court made the following: Judgment: In this appeal, order passed in W.P.No.2077 of 1998 dated 18.04.2007 has been challenged. Respondent No.1 was working as an Assistant Depot Clerk in the appellant-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. In the course of his normal work, he had received certain cut notes (currency notes which were either torn or damaged). As per the normal practice, he had taken the said currency notes by putting a hand voucher in the cash box so as to show that the said amount had been taken by him for the purpose of getting new currency notes from the bank. The amount was received by Respondent No.1 on 06.06.1992 and it was put in the cash box after getting new notes on 08.06.1992. During the aforesaid period, the cash box was inspected and it was found that actual currency notes were less because Respondent No.1 had put two hand vouchers stating that two diﬀerent amounts, namely Rs.8,000/- and Rs.3,715/-, had been taken by him for getting it exchanged from the bank. The aforesaid incident was treated as temporary misappropriation and proceedings had been initiated against Respondent No.1 and he was dismissed from service. Respondent No.1 approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after discussing the evidence in detail, by award dated 06.11.1997, has directed reinstatement of Respondent No.1 with backwages. The award was challenged by the appellant-employer by filing the above writ petition which has been rejected and being aggrieved by the order of rejection of the petition, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Advocates and have carefully gone through the award as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the Labour Court as well as by the learned single Judge to the effect that it was a practice of staﬀ of the appellant to get cut notes exchanged from the bank and for that purpose, the amount was not put in the cash box and only hand vouchers were put in the box. The reasons for getting the cut notes exchanged, as given in the enquiry proceedings, which appears to be just and proper, is that cut notes are normally not accepted by the employees when salary is given. Normally, Conductors of State Road Transport Corporation would accept even torn currency notes, but such notes are normally not accepted either by a passenger or by the staﬀ when it is paid to them, and, therefore, as per normal practice, the cut notes were being exchanged from the bank. Looking to the above facts, in our opinion, the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge are justiﬁed in quashing and setting aside the order of punishment. We see no reason to interfere with the aforesaid orders, and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ September 29, 2008 _______________________ MRR R. SUBHASH REDDY, J