IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9368 of 2000 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager , Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND Sri B.Devender, S/o Sri Maisaiah, E.112172, R/o. H.No. 4-86,Kothagudem, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in I.D.N.O.128 of 1998 dt.23-4-99 published in G.O.Rt.No.885 dt.31-5-1999 on the file of the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K. Madhava Reddy (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent: MR. V. Narasimha Goud The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, through the Depot Manager, Hayathnagar Depot, Ranga Reddy District, questioning the award dated 23-04-1998, passed by the Industrial Tribunal II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.128 of 1998. 2. The respondent herein was appointed as conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 03-12-1980. While he was conducting the service bus on the route Koti- Hayathnagar, the checking officials exercised a check on 16-11-1992 and noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. With reference to the same, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and he was issued charge-sheet with the following charge: “For having collected the fare of Rs.20/-from a batch of 8 passengers at the boarding place itself, i.e. Quthubullapur Stage No.12 and failed to issue tickets who are bound for Kuntloor Ex-stage No.19, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(vi)(a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. The respondent submitted his explanation to the aforesaid charge. But, having not satisfied with the explanation of the respondent, a regular enquiry was ordered by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry, has recorded a finding that the charge framed against the respondent is proved. Based on the same, further opportunity was given to the respondent, by inviting his explanation and order dated 07-04-1993 was passed by the disciplinary authority removing him from service. Challenging the said order, the respondent has filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad, who, by his order dated 27-08-1993, dismissed the same. Though the respondent has filed further review challenging the order dated 27-08-1993, he was unsuccessful. Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal II, Hyderabad. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, while approving the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, interfered with the quantum of punishment and imposed a lesser punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and directed reinstatement of the second respondent into service. The Tribunal further observed that, reinstatement shall not carry the benefit of back-wages but shall protect the seniority of the respondent for the purpose of promotion, if any. 4. In this writ petition, the only submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-APSRTC is that, as much as the charge framed against the respondent is proved, the Tribunal has committed an error in granting benefit of service to the respondent for the period for which he out of service and the same is not proper. 5. With reference to the aforesaid submission, it is to be noted that though the charge framed against the respondent is held proved in the domestic enquiry proceedings, it is always open for the Tribunal to set aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and impose lesser punishment in view of the power conferred on it by virtue of the provision under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A perusal of the impugned award of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has taken into account the past service rendered by the respondent and modified the punishment. The Tribunal did not award any back-wages and also did not extend the benefit of continuity of service, except protecting the seniority of the respondent for the purpose of promotion, if any. The Tribunal has exercised the power vested in it in a proper perspective and modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the same cannot be termed illegal, so as to interfere with the impugned award and alter the punishment. Moreover, it is submitted that pursuant to the award of the Tribunal the respondent was reinstated into service in the year 2000 and has completed nearly nine years of service. Hence, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the award of the Tribunal at this stage. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. March 17, 2009 MRR