IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10034 of 2000 Between: 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep.by its Dy.Chief Traffic Manager (Urban) Visakhapatnam 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep.by its Disciplinary Authority & Depot Manager Waltrair Depot, Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Vanaparthy Gandhi Ex.Workman Plot No.390 Ambedkar Nagar Arilova, Visakhapatnam 2 The Chairman and Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ or direction or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to ID.NO. 81/1999 Dt.01/11/1999 on the file of the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents : BH. BHARATHI DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10034 of 2000 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation challenging the Award dated 1.11.1999 in I.D.No.81 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent herein into service with full back-wages and continuity of service. The 1st respondent joined the service of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) as a Conductor. On 18.5.1998 he was issued a Charge-sheet alleging misconduct under Regulation 28 (vi), (xxxii) and (viii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, on the ground of alleged cash and ticket irregularities while conducting a bus on 14.5.1998 on City Route No.10P of Simhachalam. It was also alleged that he misbehaved with the Depot Manager, Simhachalam Depot. Three charges were framed against him and after considering the 1st respondent’s explanation the management conducted domestic enquiry in which all the charges were held proved. Accordingly by order dated 16.12.1998 he was removed from service. Though he preferred an Appeal, the same was dismissed by order dated 9.4.1999. In the circumstances, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was taken up as I.D.No.81 of 1999 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. It is to be noted that the 1st respondent workman did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal and on the other hand a Memo was filed on his behalf that the validity of the domestic enquiry was not being questioned. However, the Tribunal below having gone into the correctness of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer concluded that there was no adequate proof to show that the workman was guilty of charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the order of removal was set aside and reinstatement was ordered with full back-wages and continuity of service. The said award is challenged by the Corporation in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. This is a case where the workman conceded before the Tribunal that the validity of the domestic enquiry was not being questioned. Even the Tribunal did not record any finding that no legal or valid enquiry was held against the workman. In the circumstances, the Tribunal cannot reappraise the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion with regard to the correctness of the allegations in the charge-sheet. The enquiry before the Tribunal ought to have been confined to the extent of examining whether the penalty imposed was justified and whether the order of removal was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the workman. Hence the finding that the workman was not guilty of the charges levelled against him cannot be sustained. So far as the question of penalty is concerned, on a careful consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the opinion that the reinstatement of the 1st respondent as ordered by the Tribunal below warrants no interference. However there was no justification to grant the further reliefs of continuity of service and full back-wages. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed in part and the impugned award shall stand modified directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service without back-wages and without continuity of service. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Dt. 01.04.2009 gbs