THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18171 of 2001 Dated:- 02nd December, 2010 Between:- The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram …Petitioner AND Mr. P.V.Kumar and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18171 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed by APSRTC challenging the award dated 21.10.2000 passed in I.D.No.248 of 1997 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, whereby and whereunder, the award of withholding annual increment of the first respondent herein for a period of one year with cumulative effect passed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram, was set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- P.V.Kumar – the first respondent herein was working as driver in Bhimavaram Depot, APSRTC. He was incharge of the bus bearing No.AEZ 4345 on route Bhimavaram to Bangarlanka. It is alleged that on 24.11.1993, while the bus was returning to the Bhimavaram Depot, the Assistant Engineer (M), inspected the bus and found that FIP Speed Lock Screw was damaged. Since the FIP Speed Lock Screw was found to be damaged, charge-sheet was issued to the first respondent herein and as the explanation given by him was not satisfactory, enquiry was conducted, wherein, the first respondent herein was found guilty and basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect was awarded by the petitioner herein – Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram. Challenging the same, the first respondent herein raised Industrial Dispute No.248 of 1997 before the Court below. 3. The Court below, on appreciation of the material placed before it and holding that the principles of natural justice were not followed and that nobody was examined on behalf of the petitioner during the enquiry and that there was no material before Enquiry Officer to come to conclusion that the first respondent herein is responsible for damaging the FIP Speed Lock Screw of the vehicle, allowed the said I.D. by setting aside the award passed by the petitioner herein. Challenging the said award of the Court Below, APSRTC filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the duty of the driver to return the bus in the same condition in which it was handed over to him. It is further submitted that when the bus was checked by the Assistant Engineer (M), he found that FIP Speed Lock Screw of the bus was damaged and as there was no proper explanation from the first respondent herein for the same, charge-sheet was issued to him and that enquiry was conducted and that basing on the enquiry report, appropriate punishment has been awarded to the first respondent herein. 5. It is true that it is the duty of the driver to return the bus in the same condition in which it was handed over to him to the depot, without any damages. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the Assistant Engineer (M), submitted report stating that the first respondent herein caused damage to the FIP Speed Lock Screw. When it the specific case of the petitioner that the Assistant Engineer (M), submitted report that the first respondent herein caused damage to the FIP Speed Lock Screw, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to examine the Assistant Engineer (M), during the course of departmental enquiry and the first respondent herein should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. Admittedly, when such procedure was not followed, it is clear that the report of the Enquiry Officer gets vitiated for giving finding without any material, which was rightly observed by the Court below. Every finding of every authority or Enquiry Officer must be based on material, i.e., the evidence collected. Evidence includes chief-examination and cross-examination. 6. In view of the above, I hold that the award passed by the Court below is just and reasonable and do not suffer from any infirmities so as to call interference of this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 02nd December, 2010 Bvv