IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6829 of 2000 Between: Ch. T. Naidu, E. 96380, Jr. Assistant, R/o. D.No. 36-92-27/1, Kamakshinagar, Visakhapatnam, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manager, Visakhapatnam Depot, Visakhapatnam. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondents in confirming the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect passed by the 2nd respondent herein vide award in I.D.No. 234 of 98 dt. 22.12.99 which was published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No. 315 dt. 7.2.2000 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to well established principles of law as the same was passed without holding any departmental enquiry which is contrary to the Apex Court ruling reported in 1990 (1) LLJ 35 and as such liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent herein to pay the arrears of increment forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for Respondent No.1: Government Pleader for Labour Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri K. Madhava Reddy, Standing Counsel for APSRTC The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a Junior Assistant working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam dated 22-12-1999 passed in I.D No. 234 of 1998. Earlier to his posting as Junior Assistant, the petitioner was working as a Conductor during the year 1984. While he was on duty on 20-07-1984 by conducting the bus bearing No. APZ 767 on the route from K.D Peta to Visakhapatnam, at stage No. 19 i.e., Narsipatnam, a check took place. With reference to the above check, it was detected that the petitioner indulged in certain cash and ticket irregularities and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under: “Charge No.1 For having failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger who boarded the bus at K.D.Peta and found alighting at Narsipatnam Ex.stages 25 to 19, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation No.28(vi.a) of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Charge No.2 For having violated the rule “issue and start”. Charge No.3 For having closed all denominations of tickets in the SR up to stage No.19 without completing the above ticket issues”. Though the petitioner has denied the above charges, final order was passed by the disciplinary authority as early as on 08-08-1985 imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Nearly after seven years of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner was also unsuccessful before the review authority. Thereafter on the dispute raised on behalf of the petitioner, under the impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal answered the reference against the workman. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major one and the same could not have been imposed without conducting a regular enquiry. It is also submitted that the passenger who was alighting at the stage of check i.e., at stage No. 19 of Narsipatnam was ill and was sleeping on the seat and as such, the petitioner could not issue ticket to him. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that in this case, evidence was let in before the Tribunal and after appreciation of the evidence, it found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. It is submitted that there was also abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner for which there is no satisfactory explanation. In this case, it is to be noted that at the stage where the check has taken place, one passenger was alighting without ticket. Though explanation was offered by the petitioner to the charge sheet issued to him, as the same was not satisfactory, final orders were passed imposing the punishment. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no regular enquiry was conducted, but the Tribunal allowed the parties to lead evidence and the oral and documentary evidence was let in before the Tribunal. On behalf of the Management, MW 1 was examined and Exs.M-1 to M-10 were marked and on behalf of the workman, WW 1 was examined and Exs.W-1 to W-5 were marked. Even a perusal of the award of the Tribunal makes it clear that it has clearly discussed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not convincing and accordingly, answered the reference against the workman. In that view of the matter, as the evidence was allowed to be let in by the Tribunal before answering the reference, the final order of punishment cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that opportunity was not given to the petitioner before passing the final order. Even with reference to the explanation of the petitioner that the passenger who was found without ticket was sleeping and as such, he could not issue ticket also cannot be accepted. It was the duty of the petitioner to collect fare and issue tickets to all the passengers who are travelling in the bus and the explanation appears to be totally unnatural and far from truth. There is also yet another reason to reject this petition, namely, that the disciplinary authority passed orders as early as on 08-08-1985 and for seven long years, the petitioner has moved the matter. After the final orders are passed, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant and thereafter in the year 1995, after filing appeal and review, he had raised the industrial dispute. There is also no valid explanation by the petitioner for this abnormal delay and laches on his part to pursue his remedies against the final order dated 08-08-1985. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17-03-2009 ks