IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5385 of 2000 Between: B.S.R. Murthy S/o. Late Kumar Rao C/o R. Narayana Murthy, Mentada Veedhi, Salur, Vizianagaram Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Parvathipuram Depot, Vizianagaram Dist. 2 The Divisional Manager, AP.S.R.T.C., Vizianagaram. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vizianagaram. 4 The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus for not granting continuity of service with all the monitary benifits and back wages, to that extent modify the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court in I.D.No.130/1993 dt: 20-2-1997. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.C.H.MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents : MR.C.APPAIAH SHARMA The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Conductor working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award dated 20th February 1997, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.130 of 1993. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and was attached to Parvathipuram Depot. On 22.02.1992, while he was conducting the bus bearing No.AAZ-9900 on the route from Parvathipuram to Narayanapuram, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.8 at Kaluvarai, and it was found that one passenger was transporting forest goods in the bus and the petitioner has permitted the same. With reference to the said incriminating material noticed during the check, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and he was charge-sheeted vide charge sheet dated 10th March 1992, with the following charge : “For having allowed one passenger with forest goods (17 wooden logs) without permit which is a prohibited item from Parvathipuram to Narayanapuram ex-stages 1 to 11 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. The petitioner has filed his explanation to the above charge, stating that he did not notice placing of 17 wooden logs in the bus at the beginning, but however, when he has noticed the same, he accepted transportation of the said wooden logs at the instance of the other passengers in the bus, when they have stated that such wooden logs were being transported for the purpose of making the bullock cart. The disciplinary authority, dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, has ordered for regular inquiry by appointing an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry, has examined the Checking Inspector, the petitioner/Conductor and also a passenger of the bus, and ultimately, has recorded a finding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. The inquiry officer has also held that transportation of forest goods in RTC bus without valid permit, is a grave offence. Based on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the petitioner was removed from service by the Depot Manager, Parvathipuram Depot, by an order dated 04.06.1992, passed in Proceedings No.O2/62(15)/92- PPM. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same has also ended in dismissal. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.130 of 1993, by filing an application under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. At first instance, when the petitioner has challenged the validity of the domestic inquiry, the same is held to be valid by the Tribunal, vide its order, dated 16.04.1996, and the said order has become final. Before the Industrial Tribunal, no oral evidence was let in by either of the parties, but the documentary evidence in Exs.M-1 to M-11 was marked on behalf of the Management. The Tribunal, by the impugned award dated 20th February 1997, has recorded a finding that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are valid and there were no grounds to interfere with such findings. However, the Tribunal, going further with regard to the quantum of punishment, looking at the service rendered by the petitioner, has ordered that the petitioner be reinstated into service as a fresh appointee. This writ petition is filed claiming continuity of service and back wages. 5. Heard Sri Ch.Murali Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that in this case, the petitioner has not allowed transportation of wooden logs for any smuggling activity, and the charge framed against him was only with regard to ticket and cash irregularities. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the statement of the passenger was not considered by the inquiry officer, and as such, the findings recorded by him are perverse. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation that having regard to the explanation offered by the petitioner, and taking into consideration the oral evidence of the witnesses, the inquiry officer has recorded a finding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. It is submitted that though the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are approved even by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has ordered for fresh appointment of petitioner and there are no further grounds to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 8. In this case, it is to be noted that though, initially, when the petitioner has challenged the domestic inquiry proceedings, a separate order was passed, holding that the inquiry is valid, and the said order is not challenged. However, it is also to be noticed that in the explanation offered by the petitioner, it was his case that he was not having the knowledge of placing 17 wooden logs in the bus. Inspite of such a defence taken by the petitioner, having regard to the other evidence available on record, the inquiry officer has rightly recorded a finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved. Though such an explanation is filed by the petitioner, it is quite improbable that 17 number of wooden logs were placed in the bus belonging to the Road Transport Corporation, without his knowledge. The inquiry officer has recorded a finding that the petitioner has issued tickets when there was lighting in the bus, and therefore, he might have certainly observed the wooden logs placed in the bus, though it is contended by the petitioner that such lighting was dim, and as such, he did not notice the wooden logs. 9. I have perused the copies of statements recorded from the Conductor, passenger and the checking inspector, and also the inquiry report. In the inquiry report, the inquiry officer has referred to the entire documentary and oral evidence on record, including that of the passenger, and arrived at the conclusions recorded in his report. On considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, and also the depositions of witnesses, this Court is also convinced that the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer were in consonance with the evidence on record. It is also to be noticed that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority, and even the Industrial Tribunal, on re-appreciating the material available on record, has come to a conclusion that the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer are valid and proper. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the preliminary authority, appellate authority and the Industrial Tribunal. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the charge framed relates only to ticket and cash irregularities, but however, a perusal of the charge sheet, dated 10th March 1992, shows that a specific charge is framed against the petitioner for having allowed one passenger with forest goods (17 wooden logs) without permission, which is a prohibited item. Even as per Clause 28 (xxxii) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, violation of any specific Rule, is a misconduct. As much as the transportation of wood without valid permit under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Transit Rules framed under the Forest Act, 1967 is an offence, as such, the same is attracted by the misconduct referred to under Clause 28 (xxxii) of the Regulations. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for grant of any further relief either for continuity of service or for backwages. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th February 2009. ajr