IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24680 of 2005 BETWEEN M. Ramachandraiah. ... PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Zaheerabad Depot, Zaheerabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G. VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR MR. K. MADHAV REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award in I.D.No.36 of 2002 dated 17.02.2005 on the file of the Labour Court–II, Hyderabad wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking to set aside the removal order passed by the respondents was dismissed without granting any relief. 2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a casual conductor in 1982 and subsequently his services were regularized as conductor. Thereafter, he was removed from service on the allegations of cash and ticket irregularities. However, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court directed reinstatement of petitioner. While that being so, when he was conducting the bus No. AAZ 4436 on route Zaheerabad – Mattur a check took place on 27.09.1999 at stage No.9/10 Kanjamalpur village and he was issued with a charge memo enumerating the following charges: “CHARGES: 1. For having failed to observe the rule issue and start which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to issue ticket to passenger in spite of collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 2.50 from him, who boarded your bus Itikipally and found alighting without ticket at Kanjamalpur ex-stages 9/10 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 2 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. The petitioner was removed from service after conducting a detailed enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority did not commit any error in removing the petitioner from service, therefore, there was no requirement of interfering into the order of removal passed by the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. There is no necessity to go into all the details. 4. Though the charges appear to be not so serious, they were proved in full and the respondent corporation had taken a decision to remove the petitioner from service. The Labour Court also while considering the matter noted as under: “The petitioner was not having clean record. He was censured 8 times, his annual increments wee deferred 2 times, he was suspended once, he was removed from service earlier on 27.05.1982 on similar misconducts and later again on contract basis he was appointed as conductor on 26.05.1983. He was again removed from service on 23.08.1989 and again he was reinstated as per the award passed by the Labour Court – II in I.D.No.155/93. The petitioner again involved in cash and ticket irregularities in the present case and was removed from service.” 5. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority was just and valid and also the charges being proved in full, the petitioner deserves to be removed from service and the respondent corporation has not committed any error in doing so. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU, J February 2, 2011 DSK