IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22277 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Kalyanadurg Depot, Ananthapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ananthapur. 2 Sri K.A.Sattar, Ananthapur Dist. .....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 call for the records relating to and in connection with I.D 1/96 dt.26-2-99 on the file of the Labour Court, Ananthapur and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.952 dt.22-5-99, and quash the same as being arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri D.Radha Krishna The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22277 of 1999 ORAL ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”) through its Depot Manager, Kalyandurg Depot, Anantapur District, challenging the Award, dated 26-02-1999, in I.D.No.1 of 1996, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (for brevity “the Tribunal”). 2. The second respondent was working as Driver of the Corporation. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was issued a charge sheet, dated 06-06- 1984, framing two charges, which reads as under: “1. For having found to be intoxicated condition and unable to perform his charted duty when he reported to Station Manager, Hyderabad, at 21-00 hrs on 8-6-87 and made Station Manager, Hyderabad, for arranging Yadagiri Gutta Service along with along with the driver to Kalyanadurg detaining the Kalyanadurg- Hyderabad Service Bus at Hyderabad itself to safeguard the interest of the travelling public and to avoid untoward incidents, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having shown sheer negligence towards his charted duty by consuming liquor while on duty which resulted in detention of the vehicle of this depot for about half an hour (Sch. Time is 20- 30) and divertion of another service bus to Kalyanadurg along with the driver of Yadagirigutta-Hyderabad service, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xv) (b) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” 3. With reference to the above said charges, the second respondent filed his explanation on 30-06-1987, denying the same. Thereupon, a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Basing on the Enquiry Report, dated 20-08-1987, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction of pay of the second respondent to a minimum time scale, duly treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ for the purpose of leave, wages and increments. Though the second respondent questioned the said order of the disciplinary authority by way of appeal before the Divisional Manager, Anantapur, he was unsuccessful. Upon the dispute raised by the second respondent, the matter was referred by the Government through G.O.Rt.No.2924, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-I) Department, dated 15-12-1995, to the Tribunal in I.D.No.1 of 1996 for adjudication of the following reference. “Whether the Depot Manager, APSRTC Kalyandurg is justified in reducing the pay of Sri K.A.Sattar, Driver, E.No.47373 to the minimum of the time scale of grade-I Driver.” 4. The Tribunal, by the impugned Award, dated 26-02-1999, set aside the order of punishment imposed against the second respondent and ordered to extend the benefit of pay in the actual scale which he was drawing as on the date of suspension and further treat the period of suspension as ‘on duty’. 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner- Corporation and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 6. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that in view of the oral evidence recorded in the enquiry proceedings, findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer in support of the charges. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority by the Tribunal. 7. I have perused the copy of the Enquiry Report, dated 20-08- 1987. In the enquiry proceedings, the Conductor did not depose in support of the charges. The Station Manager and Ticket Inspector were examined, but they were not the direct witnesses to support the charge that the second respondent was in intoxicated condition. It is also to be noticed that no test was conducted by means of any mechanical device on the second respondent-workman to prove that he reported to duty in intoxicated condition. Therefore, it is a case of no evidence in support of the charges framed against the second respondent-workman. 8. At the same time, it is submitted that the second respondent retired from service of the Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2003 itself. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Award, dated 26- 02-1999, passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having no merits. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 13-03-2009 Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22277 of 1999 13-03-2009 Msr