IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 22324 of 1999 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Depot Manager Medchal, Ranga Reddy Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. 2 Sri N. Subash, H.No.1-111, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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.17 of 1994 dt.26.06.98 published in G.O.Rt.No.1840 dt.22.10.1998 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Labour Court-III, Hyderabad i.e. 1st Respondent herein and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.2 : MR.K.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 22324 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, dated 26th June 1998, passed in I.D.No.17 of 1994. 2. The 2nd respondent is a Driver appointed in the petitioner-Corporation, and is attached to Medchal Depot in Ranga Reddy District. While he was on duty on 17.09.1991 in the bus bearing No.AEZ-3153 on the route from Medchal – CBS – Bhainsa, a complaint was made against him, by a passenger by name M.G.Miya, another driver by name K.Lingaiah, and one D.Ramesh, who was conducting the bus, that he had misbehaved with a lady passenger while driving the bus. Based on the said complaint, a domestic inquiry was initiated against the 2nd respondent. Precisely, the complaint was to the eﬀect that the 2nd respondent has attended to duty in an intoxicated condition on 17.09.1991, and operated the service bus No. AEZ-3153. In the disciplinary proceedings, three charges were framed against the 2nd respondent, as under : “1. For having attended for duty in intoxicated condition on 17-9-91 and operated the service bus No.AEZ 3153 of 15-00 hours Medchal – CBS – Bhainsa, which is misconduct on your part vide APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having driven the vehicle No.AEZ-3153 in a rash and negligent manner creating terror in the minds of the passengers he traveled in the bus on 17-9-91 which is a misconduct on your part vide Reg.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 17-9-91, which is misconduct on your part vide REg.28 (xv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. In response to the above said charges, the 2nd respondent has ﬁled his explanation denying the charges, but however, based on the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry oﬃcer in the domestic inquiry proceedings, the 2nd respondent was removed from service. The said order of removal was challenged by way of an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), in I.D.No.17 of 1994. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was let in, but however, documentary evidence on behalf of the Management was ﬁled under Exs. M-1 to M-20. The Tribunal, while re-appreciating the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were not proved by any cogent evidence. While recording so, the Tribunal has ordered for reinstatement of the 2nd respondent into service with continuity of service and attendant beneﬁts, with 25% of backwages. This writ petition is ﬁled, questioning the said award of the Tribunal. 4. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation that inspite of valid evidence on record, the Tribunal has recorded the ﬁndings to the eﬀect that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were not proved. It is submitted that such ﬁndings are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. It is further submitted that though the 2nd respondent – Driver was removed on the charges of negligence, intoxication and misbehaviour with a lady passenger, but inspite of the same, the Tribunal has ordered for his reinstatement with 25% of backwages. 5. On the other hand, it is argued by Sri K.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-workman that it is always open for the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence on record while considering the application ﬁled under Section 2- A (2) of the Act. It is submitted that the Tribunal, having found that there is no legally acceptable evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent are not proved. It is submitted that asmuch as the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal are in accordance with the evidence on record, it cannot be said that such ﬁndings are perverse. 6. In this case, though the charges are split into three, charge Nos.1 and 2 can go together. It is the allegation of the Corporation that 2nd respondent was in intoxicated condition on 17.09.1991 and drove the vehicle bearing No.AEZ-3153 in a rash and negligent manner. Though it was the case of the Corporation that some of the passengers have complained against the 2nd respondent, to an oﬃcer of the Corporation by name Samuel at Jubilee bus station, and that the said oﬃcer has asked the other co-driver to drive the vehicle, but in the inquiry proceedings, when the other co-driver by name K.Lingaiah and Conductor by name D. Ramesh were examined, they did not speak anything against the 2nd respondent. Apart from this, the said oﬃcer by name Samuel, was not at all examined in the domestic inquiry proceedings. Further, the 2nd respondent has submitted his explanation to the eﬀect that he was driving the vehicle at about 4.30 p.m., which is a peak hour, when schools and oﬃces are closed, and that he had to apply sudden brakes so as to control the spud of the bus having regard to the need and circumstances. While considering such circumstances, and further, taking into account the fact that there was no medical report about the alleged intoxication, the Tribunal has recorded that charge Nos.1 and 2 were not proved. 7. Even with reference to charge No.3 i.e. the alleged mis-behaviour by 2nd respondent against a lady passenger, it is to be noted that even according to the petitioner-Corporation, the complaint was ﬁled by one M.G.Miya, who was the husband of the lady passenger, but however, he was not examined. It appears that the sole basis in recording a ﬁnding of guilt against the 2nd respondent in the domestic inquiry proceedings, was the statement of one D. Ramesh, who was a Conductor. Even the said person has merely stated that he came to know about the said misbehaviour of 2nd respondent, through a passenger. Therefore, from the said statement, it is clear that he too was not a direct witness to the incident. 8. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse or illegal. In any event, even the Tribunal, having recorded ﬁndings that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were not proved, has ordered for his reinstatement with only 25% of backwages. In that view of the matter also, I do not ﬁnd any ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th September 2008 ajr To 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court-III, Hyderabad.