HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 23695 of 2005 DATED: 09.02.2011 Between: G. Yadava Reddy .. Petitioner And The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- This writ petition is directed against the Award dated 02.05.2005 made in I.D. No. 51 of 2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, wherein the application filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) seeking to set aside the order of removal passed by the respondent-Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. and grant relief of reinstatement into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, was rejected in toto. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 22.05.1990. While so, on 18.07.2003, when the petitioner was conducing bus service on the route from Nirmal to Bhadrachalam, a check was exercised by the checking officials, wherein certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. On the basis of the Charge Memo issued by the checking officials, the following charges were framed: i) For having failed to observe to rule issue, close and start, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No. 28(vi-a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963. ii) For having collected Rs.36/- (each 18/-) from a batch of passengers at their boarding point itself and failed to issue tickets to them who boarded the bus at Kothagudem Stage No. 51 and alighting without tickets at Bhadrachalam Stage No. 57, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. No.28(vi-a) and (xxxii) of APSRTC employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. iii) For having closed the SR against Stage No. 57 of all denominations, without issuing tickets to the above two passengers, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. No.28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963. iv) For having found as many as 35 tickets of various denominations, which were unconcerned to the service STAR SR and 26 tickets of various denominations, of previous S.Rs. and old reservation charts each – 4 and STAR SR of Sri N. Yoganandam, E.85918 conductor of Mushirabad depot number nil and auxiliary way bill No. AO/2466902, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (xxxi) and (xxxii) of APSRTC employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963. Explanation to the charges was called for from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but since it was not found satisfactory, the disciplinary authority ordered a detailed enquiry into the matter. The enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted a report holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority, after going through the enquiry officer’s report and other material, came to the conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be removed from services, and issued a Show Cause Notice, and after completing all the formalities, removed him from services by passing an order dated 21.07.2004. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal and also a revision petition, however both of them were dismissed. Having no option, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 51 of 2004 before the Labour Court, Godavarikhani. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that domestic enquiry was not properly conducted and no opportunity was given to him to defend his case, as such, the enquiry conducted by the respondent was invalid. His further case is that there was absolutely no evidence that the charges framed against him are proved. Apart from that the charges levelled against him are very trivial in nature. Even assuming that there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, and the same is trivial in nature, it does not call for removal from services. Therefore, the order of removal passed by the respondent-corporation is liable to be set aside. The respondent-Depot Manager filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and asserted that the past conduct of the petitioner was not fair and good. Therefore, he does not deserve any leniency to be shown calling for interference of the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, even though no oral evidence was let in on behalf of either of the parties, Ex.W1 was marked on behalf of the workman and Exs.M1 to M43 were marked on behalf of the management. After considering the entire material on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges are grave in nature, the enquiry conducted by the management was proper and valid, the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner was grave in nature and there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges, and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner had put in clean service of more than 24 years and there was no misconduct worth the name alleged against him. Further, there is no substantial evidence to prove the charges. The findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are contrary to the evidence on record. The Labour Court, somehow, accepting the reasons furnished by the disciplinary authority, toed the line of management and dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that the award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent-Depot Manager has contended that the charges are grave in nature and the disciplinary authority and the Labour Court have found that the charges are proved and they have not committed any error apparent on the face of the record, calling for interference by this Court. I have given my earnest considerations to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. Charge Nos.2 and 4 as noticed above are very grave in nature. The petitioner, though collected money at Stage No.51 and the bus reached Stage No.57 where the passengers in question got down, did not issue tickets to them and closed the S.R with all denominations. That apart, as many as 35 tickets of various denominations which are unaccounted for in the S.R and 26 tickets of various denominations of previous S.Rs. and old reservation charges each – 4 STAR SR of Sri N. Yoganandam, Conductor of Mushirabad, Depot Number Nil and auxiliary Way Bill No. AO/2466902 were in his possession. This itself shows that the charges are not only grave in nature but also premeditated. From this, it appears that the petitioner is in the habit of keeping tickets which are irrelevant for the purpose of a particular route. Moreover, the past conduct of the petitioner was also not good. He was censured for eight times, his increments were deferred for 12 times, he was suspended from service on three occasions and even removed earlier once for the similar misconduct of cash and ticket irregularities. Therefore, it must be deemed that the charges are proved apart from the evidence let in during the course of enquiry, which has been found to be valid by the Labour Court. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court that the petitioner-workman is not entitled to any relief, is perfectly justified and does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition, and accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 9th February, 2011 bcj