IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2010 DATED:24.12.2010 Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager Medchel, Ranga Reddy District … Appellant And The Presiding Officer The Labour Court III Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. Removal of the respondent 2 from service was set aside by the Labour Court with a direction for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits but with only 25% of back wages. The employee – respondent 2 did not question denial of 75% back wages but challenge was thrown by the employer before the writ Court but of no avail, hence this writ appeal. To appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce the charges which formed basis of removal of the respondent 2. 1. “For having attended for duty in intoxicated condition on 17.09.1991 and operated the service bus No.AEZ3153 of 15.00 hours Medchal-CBS-Bhainsa which is misconduct on your vide APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 Regulation No.28(xv). 2. For having driven the vehicle No.AEZ 3153 in a rash and negligent manner creating terror in the minds of the passengers who travelled in the bus on 17.09.1991 which is a misconduct on your part vide Regulation No.28(ix-b) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having misbehaved against a lady passenger who occupied a seat in the 2nd three seater on 17.09.1991 which is a misconduct on your part vide Reg. No.28(xv) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 2. The Labour Court after going through the record could not find evidence in support of alleged misconduct of the respondent 2. The writ Court concurred and virtually confirmed the findings returned by the Labour Court and it is the concurrent finding of fact which is sought to be set at naught but without any material. That apart the learned counsel for the appellant failed to bring any material to our notice which would persuade us to substitute the concurrent finding of fact. Be that as it may, removal of the respondent 2 by the disciplinary authority on perverse findings cannot be sustained. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 24-12-2010 B. Narsinga Rao