THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25970 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner, a conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition questioning the award of the Labour Court dated 10-04-2000 passed in I.D.No.159 of 1997. The petitioner joined as a conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C. on 09-02-1987. On the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was issued charge-sheet dated 19-02-1996 by framing the following charges. “CHARGE No.1:- For your failure to follow the rule ‘Issue and start’ while you were conducting the Bus No.AP-9Z-8653 on the route Rapur to Hyderabad on 11-02-96 which constitute misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg. 1963. CHARGE No.2:- For your failure to collect fare and issue tickets to a batch of two passengers who boarded your bus at Nellore and bound for Hyderabad (Ex.Stages 4 to 10) while you were conducting the Bus No.AP-9Z-8653 on the route Rapur to Hyderabad service on 11- 02-1996 when constitute misconduct under Reg.28 (vi)(a) of APSRTC Conduct Reg.1963. CHARGE No.3:- For having collected Rs.408/- from a batch of six passengers who boarded the bus at Kavali and bound for Miryalaguda (Ex.stages 5 to 15) and issued 482/625927 to 5931 of Rs.10/- only whilest you were conducting the bus No.AP-9Z-8653 on the route Rapur to Hyderabad on 11-02-1996 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxv) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” CHARGE No.4:- For closing the S.R. of all denominations without completing the above issues upto Stage No.9. whilest you are conducting the Bus No.AP-9Z-8635 on the route Rapur to Hyderabad on 11-02-1996, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” The petitioner has filed his explanation to the said charges. But, having not satisfied with his explanation, a regular enquiry is conducted by appointing an enquiry officer. In view of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in his report, the disciplinary authority has passed order dated 08-05- 1996 removing the petitioner from service. Challenging the order of removal, the petitioner has filed appeal and review before the appellate and reviewing authorities, but he was unsuccessful. As against the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by appellate and reviewing authorities, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, by impugned award dated 10- 04-2000, while confirming the findings of the disciplinary authority, has exercised its power under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and set aside the order of removal dated 08-05-1996, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate without continuity of service and back-wages. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not supplied the documents, based on which the chare-sheet was issued. It is further submitted that in spite of valid explanation submitted by the petitioner on the charges framed against him, the enquiry officer has erroneously recorded findings contrary to the evidence on record. In the domestic enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was given opportunity at every stage. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he was not supplied the documents, based on which the charge-sheet was issued, but, at no point of time, he has named any particular document and requested to supply the same. Merely because some documents, which formed basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings, were not furnished, that by itself is no ground to nullify the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that statements of the passengers which were recorded in the enquiry proceedings were not furnished, but no material is placed before this court to show that any demand was made by the petitioner at any point of time. In any event, unless the petitioner demonstrates the prejudice caused to him on account of such lapse, the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be declared illegal. In the present case, the appellate authority, the reviewing authority and the Tribunal concurrently recorded findings in support of the charges, approving the findings of the disciplinary authority. Though the charges, which are proved in the enquiry, are serious, the Tribunal itself has taken a lenient view by exercising its power under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant any further relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________ 25-02-2009 Prv