IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23675 of 2000 Between: V.Srinivas, S/o. Komaraiah, R/o. H.No. 6-1-38, Ashoknagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Jagital Depot, Karimnagar District. 2 The Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.D.No.85/95 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble 2nd Respondent and quash the award dated 17-7-2000 in so far conﬁrming the termination order as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential beneﬁts, and pass such other orders or order as this High Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAFDAR MIRZA Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23675 of 2000 ORDER: There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the award, dated 17.07.2000, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in I.D.No.85 of 1995. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Karimnagar-I Depot of APSRTC, in the year 1988. While he was conducting a bus, bearing No.AEZ 1936 on the route from Maidpur on 26.02.1994, a check was exercised by the Checking Oﬃcials of the Corporation and having found certain cash and ticket irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. A charge sheet, dated 04.03.1994, was issued by framing the following charges: i) “For having violated the rule Issue and Start which constitutes to mis-conduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963. ii) For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 3 passengers from whom you have already collected the requisite fare of Rs.3.50 ps. each at the boarding point itself who boarded your bus at Suddapally and bound for Tatipally Ex- stage 8 to 5/4 which constitutes to misconduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963. iii) For having failed to issue ticket to three individual passengers in spite of collecting the requisite fare of Rs.1.50 ps. each from them at the boarding point itself who boarded your bus at Mydampally and found alighting at Thakkallapally Ex.stage 7 to 6 which constitutes to misconduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963. iv) For having failed to issue tickets to two passengers (one lady passenger and one chargeable boy of 10 years) from whom you have already collected the fare of Rs.3.50 ps. (Rs.2.00 for the lady passenger and Rs.1.50 ps. for the boy) from them, who boarded your bus at Suddapally and found alighting at Thakkallapally ex.Stage 8 to 6 which constitutes to misconduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963. v) For having closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations upto stage No.6 without completing the above ticket issued which constitutes to misconduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963.” Pursuant to the charge sheet, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Dissatisﬁed with the same, a regular enquiry was ordered and an Enquiry Oﬃcer was appointed. The Enquiry Oﬃcer, having recorded the evidence, has recorded a ﬁnding that all the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Consequently, upon a show cause notice, the petitioner was terminated from service, by proceedings, dated 26.07.1994. Aggrieved thereby, he availed the remedy of appeal. The appellate authority rejected the same by order, dated 27.09.1994. Thereafter, he ﬁled a review, which was rejected by order, dated 31.09.1995. Having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent- Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Karimnagar, in I.D.No.85 of 1995, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the Labour Court has also not granted any relief and dismissed the said I.D. by the impugned order, dated 17.07.2000. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. A perusal of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he has not collected fare from the passengers, as alleged and in spite of his explanation denying the charges, the same was not considered by the Enquiry Oﬃcer in proper perspective. It is further the case of the petitioner that the cash bag handled by him was not inspected by the Checking Oﬃcials. Therefore, there was no scope as alleged for any misappropriation of fares collected from the passengers. 5. I have perused the original record and the ﬁndings recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer in his report, dated 27.10.1994. 6. The Enquiry Oﬃcer has considered in detail the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner and also the statements of the passengers and recorded a ﬁnding to the eﬀect that the petitioner, having collected fares from several passengers, did not issue tickets to them. Though initially he has taken the plea that he has not collected the fare, but however, from the statements of the passengers, it was proved that fare was collected from several passengers and the tickets were not issued. Though he has also pleaded that signatures on the aforesaid statements are not proved by way of any acceptable evidence in the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner has not questioned the validity of the domestic enquiry. In that view of the matter, on the basis of the ﬁndings recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, he was removed from service. Merely because the cash bag was not inspected, by itself, is not a ground to hold that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved. There was material before the Enquiry Oﬃcer, namely, the statements of the passengers. It is always open for the Enquiry Oﬃcer to consider the said statements in the domestic enquiry, while recording his findings. 7. In view of the seriousness of the charges, which are proved in the domestic enquiry, it cannot be said that the order of removal passed by the respondents-Corporation is either illegal or arbitrary. The petitioner is holding the job, which was given to him with a trust, to collect the revenue for the Corporation, but he was indulged in a misconduct. In any event, since the Enquiry Oﬃcer has recorded a speciﬁc ﬁnding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him as he did not issue tickets to the passengers even after collecting fares from them, it is not open for this Court to interfere with such ﬁndings of fact, particularly, in the absence of placing any material before this Court, contrary to such findings. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any merit in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dt.12.11.2008 GJ