IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 391 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 10/09/2008 in WP NO : 21408 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: J.Srinivasa Rao, S/o J.Hanumantha Rao, R/o 1-4-47/B, Rajendranagar, Mahabubnagar. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Labour Court-III, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, 4th Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad-1. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar Depot., Mahabubnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR The Division Bench of this Judgment folloows Court made the following : 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 391 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 10-9-2008 passed in WP.No.21408 of 1999 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the award passed on 15-6-1994 and the writ petition was filed four years after passing the award, thus, the affected party is not diligent about his rights and if there is no satisfactory explanation as to the delay and laches, the party is not entitled for any relief. 2. The writ petition was filed to call for the records from the first respondent and issue an appropriate direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and quash the award passed by the first respondent in ID.No.362 of 1992 (old No.4/90) dated 15-6-1994, published on 30-9-1994 in so far as denying continuity of service as illegal, unjust and contrary to law. 3. The petitioner being a conductor in the APSRTC filed the above writ petition questioning the award, dated 15-6-1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID.No.362 of 1992. It is stated that the petitioner joined the service of the second respondent-corporation as conductor on 22-4-1985. While he was conducting the bus on route from Gulbarga to Mahboobnagar on 26-12-1986, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.16 viz., Rawalpalli. Having noticed some ticket and cash irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was charge sheeted for the following charges: (i) For having failed to observe the rule “Issue and start”, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963. (ii) For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to five passengers, who were found alighting without tickets at Rawalpally, stage No.16, having boarded the bus aqt Kastoor palli, stage No.17, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963. (iii) For having failed to close the tray numbers of all denominations against stage No.16, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. In pursuance of the above charges framed, the appellant filed an explanation stating that among five passengers, who were found without tickets, one of them tendered him a torn currency note of Rs.50/- for issuing the tickets to all of them and as such, he could not accept the same. It is stated that they could not understand his language and in the meanwhile, in view of the pressure exerted by other passengers, who were traveling to Mahboobnagar, the bus started and in the meanwhile, at the very next stage, checking officials inspected the bus. 5. On the basis of the explanation, in the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the appellant is guilty of the charges and passed an order of removal, dated 28-5-1987. The order of removal was challenged by the petitioner by way of an application under section 2A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in ID.No.362 of 1992 before the Tribunal. During the course of enquiry, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. But the management marked Exs.M1 to M16 on its behalf. 6. On appreciation of the facts and the documents marked, the Tribunal upheld the domestic and passed an order dated 20-4-1993. On further examination of the evidence adduced by the Corporation with consent, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved. In exercise of the power under section 11-A of the Act, the Tribunal taking into consideration the gravity of the charges and the explanation offered by the appellant, while considering the quantum of punishment, the Tribunal held that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of removal and directed to reinstate the appellant in the same post as a fresh appointment, without granting any other benefits i.e., backwages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. 7. Questioning the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed the above writ petition. 8. On re-appreciation of facts and circumstances and the documents marked by the management, the learned single Judge held that the Tribunal categorically found that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved and the Tribunal in exercise of its power under section 11-A of the Act substituted the punishment of removal with lesser punishment and dismissed the writ petition. 9. Aggrieved of the order passed by the learned single Judge in the above writ petition, the present writ appeal is filed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant while explaining the facts and circumstances of the case strenuously argued that the checking officials found fault with the passengers in not tendering another note for issuance of tickets, imposed fine on the passengers in question and the same was paid by the passengers without any demur. Therefore the circumstances, which were not in dispute were taken into consideration by the first respondent and even the statement of the appellant before the Enquiry Officer remain unchallenged and un-rebutted. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to set aside the award passed by the first respondent in ID.No.362 of 1992 dated 15-6- 1994 published on 30-9-1994 in so far as denying continuity of service and other attendant benefits by granting continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. 11. Per Contra, the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, contended that the Tribunal in exercise of its power under section 11-A of the Act has rightly substituted the punishment of removal with lesser punishment by awarding reinstatement of the appellant as a fresh candidate, and therefore, the impugned award does not call for interference of this court. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC and perused the records. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC and on examining the award as well as the facts on hand, the Tribunal in exercise of its power under section 11-A of the Act has rightly substituted the punishment of removal with lesser punishment by awarding reinstatement of the appellant as a fresh candidate and the learned single Judge also after examining the matter has dismissed the writ petition. We are in agreement with the conclusion arrived by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Though the checking officials found fault with the passengers in not tendering another fifty rupees note for issuance of tickets, imposed fine on the passengers in question and the same was paid by the passengers without any demur but the record also goes to show that three charges which were framed against the appellant for committing misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) and (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963 were proved. Thus, it is not a fit case to interfere with the order impugned in this writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 14. In the result, the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR. 27-04-2009. I s L