IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 804 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 15/10/2008 in WP NO : 3948 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. BHEL Depot. Medak District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 P. Srinivas S/o. Balakrishna R/o. H.No. 3-9-23, RTC Colony, Chandanagar, Near Huda Police Station, Ranga Reddy District - 500 050 2 The Labour Court II, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 15.10.2008 made in W.P. No.3948 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of this court dismissing the writ petition and confirming the award dated 2.11.2002 made in I.D. No. 129 of 1999 by the second respondent herein, the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation is in appeal. The first respondent writ petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the appellant - Corporation on 29.12.1988 and his services were regularized with effect from 10.11.1989 and worked as such for ten years. While so, the workman was served with a charge sheet dated 31.10.1998, basing on the petition dated 6.5.1998 received by the Corporation alleging that the workman has secured the employment on production of bogus SSC Certificate. After conducting enquiry, the first respondent was removed from service on 25.6.1999 and the appeal preferred by him to the Divisional Manager – Appellate Authority was also rejected. Assailing the same, the first respondent herein has raised an industrial dispute in ID No. 129 of 1999 which was allowed by the second respondent herein directing the appellant Corporation to reinstate him into service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation preferred the above Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge observing that except the petition said to have been received by the appellant – Corporation and the alleged endorsement said to have been made by the Additional Joint Secretary to the Commissioner for Government Examination, A.P., Hyderabad, who, admittedly was not examined by the Enquiry Officer, allowed the writ petition confirming the award dated 2.11.2002 passed by the second respondent herein in I.D. No. 129 of 1999. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation preferred this Writ Appeal. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of only the workman – respondent herein, who has testified his defence to the effect that he did not produce any bogus SSC certificate. The Enquiry Officer, it appears, has been carried away by the endorsement made by the Additional Secretary to the Commissioner for Government Examinations, A.P., Hyderabad, to the effect that the SSC certificate produced by the first respondent is a bogus one. Mere endorsement, which does not consist of the seal of the officer or even the date and that too in the absence of examination of its maker, leave alone opportunity to cross examine such a witness, cannot be taken as a gospel truth to substantiate the charge framed against the workman – first respondent. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. We do not see any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Judge. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar June 18, 2009 MAS