THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO W.P.NO.23974 OF 2001 Between: A.Venkata Reddy ..Petitioner Vs Labour Court-III, Hyderabad and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO W.P.NO.23974 OF 2001 ORDER:- The petitioner herein was a conductor of the first respondent since 1996. On 12-05-1998 when he was on duty from Yadagirigutta to Deveruppal and the bus was checked at Stage No.16 at 8.30 A.M and there are said to be irregularities noticed by the checking staff. A charge memo was given with the following charges. 1) “For having violated the rule “Issue & Start” which constitutes mis- conduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC, Employee’s (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. 2) “You have collected the requisite ticket fare of Rs.5/- from 13 passengers at boarding point itself, who boarded the bus at Ramaram and alighting at Vastakondur, Ex-stages 12 to 16 and issued tickets bearing No.097/755593 to 595, E.3-097/955598 to 599, E.2-097/7555600 to 603, E.4 and 097/955605 to 608 of E.4 of Rs.5/- den., worth of Rs.65/- on the above said tickets boarding state is 1 and alighting stage No. (5) punching is found. The above said tickets were already sold out at stage No. (1) and also accounted in the S.R. Hence, the said tickets were not accepted and obtained TPT No. 097/755621 to 633 of Rs.5/- den., E-13, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a)(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 3) “You have closed all the denominations in the S.R. upto check point i.e., stage No.16 without completing ticket issues, which constitutes mis- conduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 4) “You have absented to your duties unauthorisedly from 19-5-1998 to 22-5-1998 and still without any intimation or take prior permission from your immediate supervisors, Reg. 28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. The petitioner submitted an explanation contending that he is not guilty of any of the charges and the check was conducted by the officers is not proper and no incriminating material was seized and there is no proof of charge No.4 and therefore the enquiry conducted by the departmental authorities and the consequential order passed holding that the charges are proved and the consequential order of removal which was upheld by the second respondent is not valid. The petitioner has suffered loss and therefore the petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Industrial Tribunal and the disciplinary authority is not proper. It is to be noted that in this writ petition the court is not inclined to go into the merits of the charge or the particulars of the evidence since the scope of redressal is less. The only scope available for consideration is whether there is any violation of principles of natural justice and whether the petitioner was denied any opportunity to defend. In fact in the grounds of appeal, no such facts were mentioned and on the other hand the petitioner was represented by a representative on his side and in fact case law was also placed before the Tribunal. Evidently, the appreciation of evidence made by the disciplinary authority and the Industrial Tribunal is final and I do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion about the reasoned orders given by the lower authorities. The only question is whether the imposition of the punishment of removal is hardship and whether it can be interfered or not. In fact the order of the second respondent clearly deals with each of the contentions raised by the petitioner in point No.16 under items 1 to 7. Such appreciation of the evidence cannot be interfered by this court. In fact accepting the contention of the appellant, the second respondent has found that charge No.4 is not proved. However, the other charges are proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that charge is only with regard to the petitioner has resorted to sell the old tickets, amounting to a sum of Rs.65/- which is a paltry sum and the punishment imposed is disproportionate. But the second respondent has given sufficient reasons to hold that the conduct of the petitioner is clearly violative and trust placed in him by the management and did not interfere with the alleged punishment. In this connection, the counsel for the first respondent relied upon a decision reported in Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma([1]) which clearly lays down that when misconduct is upheld there is no justification to order reinstatement. Therefore, keeping in view of the above principle, there are no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 31 -12-2010 TSNR [1] (2002) 10 SCC 330