IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1197 OF 2005 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hakimpet Depot, Rangareddy District ..... APPELLANT AND Sri M.K. Shabuddin and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI GHULAM MOHAMMAD) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. No. 16036 of 1995 i.e. A.P.S.R.T. Corporation is the appellant. By order dated 27.10.2004, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the Award dated 15.3.1994 passed in I.D. No. 210 of 1992 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, whereby it was held that the charges 1 and 3 were not proved and the charge No.2, which relates to improper closing of the S.R., was proved. On 27.5.1986, while the first respondent herein was conducting bus on route No.11, a surprise check was made at Stage No.13 and found that he did not issue tickets to three passengers, who boarded the bus at Thumkunta, Stage No.11, though fare of Rs.0.50 Ps. each was collected from them and the S.R. was also closed. Hence the first respondent was charge sheeted for the lapses amounting to misconduct under Regulation 28(vi-a) and 26(xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, imposed the punishment of removal from service and accordingly, the first respondent was removed from service by order dated 11.9.1986. On appreciation of entire evidence recorded during the course of domestic enquiry, the Labour Court found that charges 1 and 3 are not proved and the charge No.2 i.e. improperly closing the S.R., is quite trivial and it does not attract the punishment of removal from service. Accordingly, Labour Court by order dated 15.3.1994 directed reinstatement of the workman into service and awarded 50% of the back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein filed W.P. No.16036 of 1995 and a learned Single Judge, by the order impugned in this Writ Appeal, dismissed the writ petition affirming the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein contends that having found the first respondent guilty of charge No.3 in improperly closing the S.R., learned Single Judge ought not to have granted back wages. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – workman contends that the statement of the lady passenger shows that she purchased the ticket, that the charges 1 and 3 are not proved and in view of triviality of charge No.2, the Labour Court has rightly ordered reinstatement into service with 50% of the back wages. It is not in dispute that the first respondent had closed the number tray by the time of sudden surprise and no explanation for the same is forthcoming. The Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence, has rightly found the said charge proved. The respondent – workman did not file any affidavit that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of suspension. Having regard to the proven misconduct in respect of charge No.2 and the triviality of the said charge, we deem that grant of 25% of the back wages will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part modifying the grant of back wages from 50% to 25%. Barring this reduction in the payment of back wages, the rest of the Award is confirmed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar October 13, 2011 MAS