HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.463 of 2006 Date: December 07, 2010 Between: R. Gnaneshwar … Petitioner And 1. The Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, rep. by the Presiding Officer & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.463 of 2006 ORDER: The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D. No.289 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad assails the NIL award dated 01.4.2002 passed therein. 2. The petitioner, a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with his misbehaviour on 25.8.1997 with his superior, the Leading Hand of the depot. He was charged with having assaulted him resulting in the Leading Hand sustaining bleeding injuries on his forehead and also for having used unparliamentary language against him. After due inquiry, the petitioner was removed from service on 15.12.1997. His appeal and review having met with failure on 23.01.1998 and 06.3.1999 respectively, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. 3. The Labour Court by order dated 03.01.2002 held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the petitioner was valid. After examination of the material available on record, the Labour Court concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner on both charges. As the misconduct levelled and proved against the petitioner was of a grave nature, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate and accordingly dismissed the I.D. 4. Sri A. Tirupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the inquiry held against his client was invalid, as the proceedings were conducted in English language contrary to the circular instructions issued by the APSRTC itself. He further stated that a material witness, Ravi, the second shift driver was not examined during the inquiry and that all the witnesses who spoke against the petitioner were subordinates of the Leading Hand. The learned counsel therefore argued that no reliance could be placed upon their evidence and that the findings based thereon could not be sustained. He further argued that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate and the Labour Court erred in not exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in so far as the quantum of the punishment was concerned. 5. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, refuted the above contentions on merits and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court indicates that he did not choose to raise the issue of violation of the APSRTC’s circular instructions with regard to the conduct of the inquiry proceedings in English. Further no ground is raised in the present writ petition with regard to the finding of the Labour Court as to the validity of the domestic inquiry. In exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction this Court would not permit the petitioner to enlarge the scope of inquiry by raising new grounds at this stage. 7. In so far as the petitioner’s contention as to the non-examination of the second shift driver is concerned, the inquiry proceedings reflect that after his examination the petitioner was specifically asked whether he wished to produce any evidence or witnesses in his defence. To this query he categorically replied that he did not have any evidence or witnesses to produce in the inquiry. Thus, even if the APSRTC failed to examine the second shift driver, the petitioner could have availed the opportunity given to him in the inquiry and examined the said driver. He however chose not to do so. In the light of his failure, he cannot now assail the inquiry proceedings on the ground that the said driver was not examined. 8. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the proportionality of the punishment imposed must also fail. The charges levelled and proved against the petitioner clearly demonstrated insubordination and the scant respect and regard he had for his superior. Maintenance of discipline in the organisation being of paramount importance, any lenience shown towards such acts of indiscipline would set a bad example. The removal of the petitioner from service therefore cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against him. Viewed from any angle, the award of the Labour Court does not brook interference. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: December 07, 2010. BSB