IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17237 of 1999 Between: A.Sambaiah S/o Kashaih A.P.S.R.T.C., R/o H.No.11-22-348/A, Behind Kasibugga Temple, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot , Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 2 The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the Depot Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hanamkonda, Warangal District, i.e., the 1st Respondent herein in proceedings No.E3/1(13)/92-HNK. dated 21-8-1992, and the award of the 2nd respondent i.e., Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D. No 122/93 dated 28-2-97, in so far as rejecting the relief of continuity of service and backwages as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice and set aside the same in so far as the above reliefs and consequently direct the respondent to grant continuity of service and backwages and other attendant beneﬁts and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.PADMANABHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SMT. P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17237 of 1999 ORAL ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by a Driver working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”) attached to its Depot at Hanamkonda, Warangal District, challenging the Award, dated 28-02-1997, in I.D.No.122 of 1993, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal (for brevity “the Tribunal”), to the extent of rejecting his claim of continuity of service and backwages. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Casual Driver in the service of the Corporation on 01-04-1987 and his services were regularized with eﬀect from 01-04-1988. Prior to 1991, he suﬀered the punishment thrice by which his increments were ordered to be deferred. In the year 1992, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent to duty from 29-04-1992 to 01-05- 1992 and also for a period of 25 days from 03-10-1991 to 13-04- 1992, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was issued a charge sheet by framing the following two charges: “1. For having un-authorisedly absent for your duties from 29-4-92 to till date causing dislocation of services and inconvenience to the travelling public, which is a misconduct U/Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC., Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963. 2. For having absented for duties from 25-days, and away from duty by means of 12 days leave, 4 days sick, 25 days, absent during period from 3-10-1991 to 13-4- 92 causing dis-location, cancellation of services and causing inconvenience to travelling public, which is a misconduct U/Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC., Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. To the above said charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16-05-1992. However, the Disciplinary Authority, without accepting the said explanation, ordered for regular enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Oﬃcer. The Enquiry Oﬃcer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 06- 06-1992. Basing on the same, the Depot Manager, Hanamkonda Depot, by proceedings, dated 21-08-1992, removed the petitioner from service in exercise of the powers under Regulation 9 (ii)(e) read with 12 (xiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the petitioner has raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act”) in I.D.No.122 of 1993 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by the impugned Award, dated 28- 02-1997, recorded a ﬁnding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. However, by further examining whether the penalty imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service as a fresh recruit, denying the claim of continuity of service, backwages and other attendant beneﬁts. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. This writ petition is ﬁled mainly on the ground that there is no material to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. However, on a perusal of the order, dated 21-08- 1992, passed by the Depot Manager, Hanamkonda Depot, Warangal District, and the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned Award, dated 28-02-1997, it cannot be said that the ﬁndings recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, as conﬁrmed by the Tribunal, are either perverse or recorded without any material. 6. In the explanation with reference to ﬁrst charge, though the petitioner has stated that he was suﬀering from “Urinary semen discharge trouble”, however, he has produced a certiﬁcate, which was not countersigned by the R.T.C. Doctor, to the eﬀect that he was suﬀering from “Enteric fever”. Even with reference to the second charge, ﬁndings are recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer by examining the Attendance Register and after verification of the Leave Cards. 7. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the ﬁndings recorded in the domestic enquiry, as conﬁrmed by the Tribunal, are in conformity with the evidence on record. The Tribunal, though agreed with the ﬁndings recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, however, in exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the Act, has ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the Award passed by the Tribunal, so as to give any further beneﬁt of continuity of service, attendant beneﬁts or any backwages. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17237 of 1999 19-11-2008 Msr