HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 764 OF 2006 Between: APSRTC represented by its Depot Manager, Falaknuma Depot, Hyderabad. ………….Petitioner AND Sri T. Kondal Reddy, Conductor APSRTC and one another ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order-dated 21.2.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 32539 of 1998 by the learned single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent herein was appointed as regular Conductor in the Corporation on February 1988. It is stated that on 4.7.1993 when he was conducting the bus between J.P.Darga to Charminar and between Stage No. 12 and 11 at about 20.10 hours a check was conducted and a charge memo was issued framing the following charges: “i. For having failed to observe the rule issue and start, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No. 28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. ii. For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to twenty five passengers found alighting without tickets at Yelminerva who boarded the bus Jahangir Peer Darga, Ex. Stages 12 to 11, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. iii. For having failed to close the tray numbers against stage No. 11, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation NO. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. Basing on the above charges, an Enquiry has been conducted and finally the respondent has been removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No. 59 of 1994 and the labour Court by order dated 17.11.1997 allowed the petition and held that the removal of the respondent from service was illegal and the same was set aside and it further directed that the respondent should be reinstated paying him full backwages with continuity of service and with other attendant benefits within one month from the date of publication of the award. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-APSRTC preferred Writ Petition and a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC filed the present Writ Appeal. The learned standing counsel for APSRTC appearing for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the award of the labour Court directing reinstatement into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and full backwages is contrary to the evidence on record and it ought to have granted half backwages instead of full backwages. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the order passed by the labour Court is quite reasonable, therefore, the learned single Judge did not interfere with the same and dismissed the Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. The impugned award clearly shows that the passengers who were drunken stage, have boarded the bus, and though the first respondent requested them to give fare and collect tickets, they have threatened and slapped and forced him to move the bus, and at stage No. 11 when the check was exercised, they have even assaulted the checking officials and damaged their jeep, and for that the checking officials lodged a complaint with Police Kottur and this fact is not controverted by the Corporation. The Apex Court in INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. I.O.B STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS’ UNION AND ANOTHER[1] held that the High Court has no power to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its power under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court also in SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI[2], observed as under: “Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction- by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.” It is no doubt true that the first respondent because of compelling circumstances could not issue and collect fare from the passengers, therefore, the labour Court having regard to the circumstances and situation which prevailed and prevented the 1st respondent from issuing tickets to the passengers, had rightly ordered his reinstatement into service with consequential benefits. Therefore, following the above judgments of the Apex Court, the learned single Judge of this Court has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, we see no reasons to interfere with order passed by the learned single Judge and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DATE: 03.08.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (2000) 4 SCC 245 [2] AIR 2003 SC 3044=2003 AIR SCW 3872