IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22435 of 1999 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep by its Depot Manager Picket Depot, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND P. Anjaiah S/o Sriranga Rao, C/o Sri G. Vidyasagar (Advocate), H.No.719, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in I.D.No.167 of 1996 dt.26.03.99 published in G.O.Rt.No.1060 dt.8.6.1999 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22435 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, passed in I.D.No.167 of 1996, dated 26th March 1999. 2. The respondent herein was appointed as a Driver in the petitioner-Corporation and attached to the Picket Depot, Secunderabad. On 16.05.1995, he was the Driver on the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-7867 in its down journey from Bangalore to Secunderabad. While in transit, the vehicle was involved in a ﬁre accident in the limits of Udumulapadu village near Dhone of Kurnool District. A Committee was constituted by the Corporation to inquire into the cause of accident. It appears that the said Committee has submitted a report on 27th May 1995, to the eﬀect that there were liquor bottles wrapped in a pair of trousers belonging to the respondent/workman, and they were concealed in the bonnet of the bus, as the same were prohibited from carrying. Based on the inquiry report, disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the respondent/workman by framing the following charges: “1. you have carried liquor bottles in the bonnet of Bus No.AP-9Z-7867 while performing Bangalore to Picket service on 15/16-5-1995 violating the provisions of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1994 communicated through circulars, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 [xvii] of APSRTC Employees [conduct] Reg.,1963. 2. you have caused extensive damages to the bus No.AP-9Z-7867 Deluxe Coach in the ﬁre accident caused on 16-5-1995 at about 2.00 hours at Udumulapadu village while incoming from Bangalore to Secunderabad on accunt of carrying highly inﬂammable material, namely liquor bottles, hiding them in the bonnet of bus, which act constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 [ix-A] & [xiii] of APSRTC Employees [conduct] Regulations, 1963. 3. you have reported about the ﬁre accident to Depot Manager, Dhone only at about 6.15 hours on 16-5-1995 though the incident took place at about 2.00 hours at a distance of only 4 Kms. Away from Dhone. Further, you have not obtained the statements of the passengers but allowed them to go away with an intention to hush up the truth which tantamount to misconduct as per Regulation 28 [xxx] of APSRTC Employees [Conduct] Regulations, 1963. 4. you have not reported to Police oﬃcials for enquiry in spite of acknowledging the instructions of Senior Traﬃc Inspector, Dhone or submitted any information to the Depot Oﬃcials till today, which tantamount to absconding from duties and constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 [xxvii] of APSRTC Employees [Conduct] Regulations, 1963. 5. for having caused inconvenience to the passengers of Veh.No.AP-9Z-7867 who traveled in the said bus owing to the above mentioned accident on 16-5-1995 at about 2.00 hours at Udumulapadu village near Dhone, arising out of your mis-conduct and denigrate the image of Corporation, which tantamount to serious misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 [xxxi] of APSRTC Employees’ [Conduct] Regulations, 1963.” 3. The inquiry oﬃcer who was appointed in disciplinary proceedings, submitted the report against the respondent/workman stating that the charges framed against him, were proved. Based on the findings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer, the respondent was removed from service vide proceedings dated 30th September 1996. The said order of removal was challenged by the respondent/workman before the Industrial Tribunal, by ﬁling I.D.No.167 of 1996, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, by discussing the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the Corporation in detail, has recorded a ﬁnding that there was no material on record, and also no basis to hold that the respondent- employee was responsible for the charges levelled against him. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered for reinstatement of the respondent/driver to the service with continuity of service and attendant beneﬁts, but without back wages. 4. In this writ petition, it is contended by learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/Corporation that asmuch as at the stage of preliminary inquiry the delinquent/employee himself had admitted to the eﬀect that the trousers in which the liquor bottles were wrapped, belong to him, and in that view of the matter, there was a clear case of admission by the workman, which was made basis by the inquiry oﬃcer to record a ﬁnding that the charges framed against the workman were proved. It is submitted that in that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought not have reversed the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. 5. Out of the charges framed against the petitioner, it appears that Charge No.1 is a substantive one. In respect of this charge, it was the case of the Corporation that the respondent/workman had carried liquor bottles by wrapping them in his trousers and concealing the same in the bus bonnet, while driving the bus from Bangalore to Picket on 15/16.05.1995. In the inquiry report prepared in the domestic inquiry, the inquiry oﬃcer has recorded the ﬁnding against the workman, basing only on the alleged statement recorded from the respondent during the preliminary inquiry. It is stated in the inquiry report that during his statement in the preliminary inquiry, the respondent/workman has admitted to the eﬀect that the trousers, in which the liquor bottles were wrapped, belong to him. Based on the said admission alone, the inquiry oﬃcer has recorded a ﬁnding against the petitioner, but however, the Tribunal below, has held that the statement recorded during the preliminary inquiry is an exparte one, and that the said statement alleged to have been made by the respondent/workman, was also not marked in the domestic inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal took the view that in the absence of the alleged statement on record in the inquiry proceedings, no adverse ﬁnding can be recorded against the respondent, based on the preliminary inquiry proceedings. Even from a perusal of the inquiry report, it is clear that there is no indication of ﬁling such a statement, which is alleged to have been made by the respondent during the preliminary inquiry. In that view of the matter, I am in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that on mere statement alleged to have been given in the preliminary inquiry, no adverse ﬁnding can be recorded against the employee. It is a well established fact that once disciplinary proceedings are initiated by framing a charge against an employee, that charge has to be proved by placing suﬃcient material before the inquiry oﬃcer, in the absence of which, no adverse ﬁnding can be recorded against the employee, merely based on the preliminary inquiry. Further, even with reference to other charges of not reporting to the nearest Bus Depot and not reporting to the Police, the Tribunal has recorded a ﬁnding that the same would not amount to misconduct within the meaning of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 7. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1988, and pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, he is again reinstated into service, without backwages. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any merit in this writ petition, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th August 2008 ajr To The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Picket Depot, Secunderabad.