HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.2180 of 2002 ORDER:- In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the Award dated 07.03.2001 passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.56 of 1999. Petitioner is the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) represented by its Manager of Dilsukhnagar depot, Hyderabad. Respondent herein was at the relevant time employed as a Conductor in the said depot. 2. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against the respondent on a misconduct relating to unauthorised absence and the said charge reads as follows. “For having absented to your duties unauthorisedly from 29.8.97 to till date without intimation or prior sanction of leave, resulting dislocation of services as well as cancellation of services and loss of revenue to corporation besides inconvenient to travelling public which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees' (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. The above charge is to the effect that the respondent was absent from 29.08.1997 to 10.09.1997 which is the date of the charge sheet. 4. In the grounds of the writ petition itself and also as seen from the impugned Award dated 07.03.2001 of the labour court which ordered reinstatement it is mentioned that Smt.B.Sathyamma the wife of the respondent gave an intimation in writing to the management to the effect that the respondent has gone to Nalgonda to attend a sessions case in the Sessions Court there. The Award shows that the respondent was convicted in the said sessions case i.e. S.C.No.370 of 1995 on 27.08.1997 on a murder charge and following the same he was lodged in the Chanchalguda jail at Hyderabad for undergoing the life sentence awarded to him. Thus during the period of unauthorised absence mentioned in the above charge the respondent was admittedly in jail and the management had knowledge about his conviction and this is recorded by the labour court in the impugned Award and this is not in dispute. The disciplinary authority ignoring the above aspect dismissed him from service on the above charge of unauthorised absence. The labour court found in the impugned award that since the management was aware about the detention of the respondent in the Chanchalguda jail the dismissal order which was confirmed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained and in that view of the matter it has set aside the said order and directed reinstatement of the respondent. It however rightly held that the respondent was not entitled to wages or salary during the above period of absence. 5. The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the above Award. Its main plea in the writ petition is that the respondent is liable to be dismissed from service following his conviction on a criminal charge and imprisonment and therefore the dismissal order is sustainable on that ground in view of the APSRTC Employees' (conduct) Regulations, 1963. No doubt the petitioner/APSRTC may be justified in taking disciplinary action on that ground against the respondent. 6. It may however be noted that the charge framed against the respondent which is already set out supra is for unauthorised absence and not on the ground that he was convicted on a criminal charge. Hence the contention of the learned counsel based on a conviction of the respondent on a criminal charge cannot be sustained. It is brought to my notice now that subsequently the conviction of the respondent has also been set aside in Crl.A.No.975 of 1997 on the file of this court. This is recorded by the labour court in the impugned Award and this is not in dispute. 7. In other words, the impugned Award in which the labour court held that the respondent could not attend his duties because of his conviction and lodgement in the jail in the above criminal case and therefore it cannot be treated as unauthorised absence need not be interfered with in this writ petition. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner however pointed out that still the APSRTC is entitled to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent because of his conviction on a criminal charge. It shall be open for the APSRTC to initiate such an action if it is entitled to do so under the Regulations notwithstanding the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent immediately pointed out that while exercising certiorari jurisdiction this court should not make the above observation while dismissing the writ petition. It may be noted that by the above observation this court is not advising the APSRTC or directing it to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent on the above ground of conviction on a criminal charge. The above observation is only made while answering the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that any disciplinary action for a charge not framed cannot be taken and that it shall be open for the APSRTC to take such action if it decides to do so on the above ground if that is permissible. Thus the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is not a sustainable one. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 2nd August 2011 CVRK