THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.14808 OF 2003 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 23.8.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.293/1998, in denying the back wages and continuity of service while ordering reinstatement, the workman, who is the Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Cuddapah Depot, filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner was working as Driver in the respondent – Corroboration. While so, the Security Head Guard of Cuddapah, sent a report on 27.1.1997 stating that on 26.1.1997 the petitioner was performing his duty from Cuddapah to Kondur in the service bus bearing no.AAC 2510 and by consuming liquor, detained the bus near Sangatipali a request stage, while returning to Cuddapah and informed in intoxicated condition to the conductor and the passengers that the fan belt of the bus was cut and top gear of the bus is not functioning and wanted the conductor to arrange relief and accordingly the relief arrangements were made with P.B.Khan helper, the Depot Mechanical charge men. After inspecting the bus, the said P.B.Khan found no such mechanical defects and that the bus was in good condition. Therefore, the bus was brought to the servicing by the petitioner without any repairs. When it was enquired by the security branch, it was revealed that the petitioner was in intoxicated condition. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to APSRTC Dispensary, Kadapah and the Medical Officer, on examination found that the petitioner consumed liquor and was in intoxicated condition and accordingly issued certificate. The security guard recorded the statement of the service conductor and sent a report. Based on these averments, the following charges were framed against the petitioner: 1. For having consumed liquor while on duty on 26.1.1997 while performing Cuddapah – Kondur Nigh out service with AAZ:2540 and detained the service vehicle at Sangatipalli request stage while returning to Cuddapah from Kondur, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having detailed the vehicle on some false grounds ie., fan belt cut and top gear slip and directed the service conductor to arrange relief though there is no such complaint to the vehicle, while in intoxicated condition, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having informed the passengers that the service cannot be continued from Sangatipalli request stage on some false failure in the vehicle and caused cancellation of 90 Kms. service and loss of Rs.800-00 to the Corporation, and much inconvenience and mental agony to the traveling public, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The Chief Inspector (E) RM’s Office, Cuddapah conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted report holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, the order of removal was passed by the respondent – Depot Manager of the Corporation. Challenging the same, the petitioner raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.293/1998 and by the impugned award dated 23.08.2001, the Tribunal while setting aside the order of termination, directed reinstatement of the petitioner afresh and also directed to defer one annual increment without cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioner as contended by the counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was in intoxicated condition. It is contended that there is no independent evidence on record, except that of the Security Head Guard, who has not seen the petitioner consuming alcohol while performing the duty. She submitted that the doctor who examined the petitioner has not examined the petitioner scientifically to find that he was in an intoxicated condition. Therefore, she contended that the finding of the Enquiry Officer and as confirmed by the Tribunal are based on no evidence. Therefore, she sought to set aside the findings of the Tribunal in that regard. Nextly she contended that the petitioner has put in substantial length of service and already, back wages have been denied, and, therefore, she sought to take a lenient view and grant continuity of service. With these averments, she sought to modify the impugned award. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted that he consumed liquor while on duty and hence no other evidence need be adduced, but however, the Corporation by examining the relevant witnesses, proved the charge against the petitioner. She submitted that already the Tribunal has taken a lenient view and granted reinstatement afresh and hence no further leniency be taken. She submitted that if the impugned award is modified, the petitioner who admitted that he consumed liquor while on duty, will go scot-free and hence sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The charges against the petitioner is that on 26.1.1997 while he was performing the duty on the bus bearing no.AAZ 2540 between Cuddapah and Konduru, consumed liquor and detained the vehicle at Sangatipalli, which is a request stage, while returning to Cuddapah from Konduru with false grounds that the fan belt is cut and that the gears are slipping and thus caused revenue loss to the Corporation of about Rs.800/-. 7. The petitioner before the enquiry officer, has categorically admitted that he consumed alcohol, but pleaded that due to severe stomach ace and on the advise of the elders, he consumed liquor to get the relief from stomach ache. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has consumed liquor while on duty and the enquiry officer and the Tribunal rightly based on evidence, recorded finding of fact that the charge in this regard and the other charges are proved and hence the contention of the petitioner that there is no independent evidence or that the doctor has not made scientific examination, cannot be countenanced and the findings of the enquiry officer and the finding of the Tribunal are based on evidence and cannot be interfered with in the writ petition. 8. Coming to the proportionality of the punishment, the Tribunal by taking the substantial service rendered by the petitioner and considering the innocent dependants of the petitioner, set aside the order of removal and ordered reinstatement afresh and also deferred one annual increment without cumulative effect. 9. The petitioner was denied back wages. The petitioner has considerable length of service. Hence, in my considered view, as the petitioner was given reinstatement, though his length of service may not be counted for his academic purpose of promotion and seniority, at least, the length of service may be considered for granted terminal benefits. 10. Accordingly the award of the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the petitioner is granted reinstatement without back wages and he is granted continuity of service only for the purpose of retrial benefits. The further direction with regard to deferment of one annual increment without cumulative effect is confirmed. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 23—10--2008