THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3653 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.127 of 2001 dated 14.5.2004 on the file of the learned Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act was dismissed confirming the removal order passed by the first respondent-Depot Manager. It appears, petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in the Respondent-Corporation and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk (ADC). While the petitioner working as ADC, Palakonda Depot in Traffic Section, who was the custodian of monthly season tickets (MST) which are high value season tickets and student bus passes, a test audit party visited the Depot on 24.3.1999 and after completing the inspection of the rest of the unit and since the petitioner was not available, they got opened the locked tray box in the presence of Security Head Guard, Palakonda and STI, Palakonda and detected various irregularities and reported the matter to the authorities stating that the petitioner has misappropriated the amounts to a tune of Rs.27,380/-. The management got a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent (P) of Palakonda Depot and it was held that the petitioner is responsible for the misconduct. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, management ordered for a domestic enquiry and the enquiry officer, after following the procedure prescribed under law, submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice of removal and on submitting explanation, petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal and review before the appropriate authorities, however the same were also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2- A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that the management had not conducted enquiry properly and without there being any evidence, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges and the said report was accepted by the disciplinary authority and ultimately, the disciplinary authority passed removal order. Assuming that the charges are proved, punishment of removal from service was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. No oral evidence was adduced on either side. However, on behalf of management, documents Exs.M1 to M25 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the matter, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges are proved and they are serious in nature, therefore no interference is called for and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, and as such dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that absolutely there was no evidence either before the enquiry officer or before the disciplinary authority to show that the petitioner was responsible for the loss, if any, caused to the Respondent- Corporation. May be, from the verification of way bills, it was established that the monthly seasonal tickets were sold out and the sale proceeds were not remitted. This appears to be not true, since the way bills and the monthly seasonal tickets are not available, the management assumed that the petitioner had sold away those missing monthly seasonal tickets and made money out of it. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove the same. This is an inference drawn on mere assumptions and presumptions. Therefore, petitioner ought not to have been held guilty of the charges. On a perusal of the enquiry officer’s report, it is seen that at the time of check by the Test Audit and STI on 30.3.1999 along with the last operated way bill No.7014625 dated 13.3.1999 many tickets were not available in the tray, which should be available as per the present status of the way bill and even the monthly seasonal tickets were not available, which should have been available as per the account maintained by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is innocent. May be, there is no concrete evidence to hold the petitioner guilt of charges. In a departmental enquiry, some evidence which indicates towards the misconduct on the part of the petitioner is sufficient to hold him guilty of charges. That is what exactly done by the enquiry officer as well as by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer or disciplinary authority cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal and suffers from any legal infirmity. However, admittedly, petitioner was aged 52 years as on the date of removal from service and he had put in more than 25 years of service in the Respondent-Corporation. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and proved against the petitioner. Therefore, it would be proper to treat the petitioner as if he had retired from service as on the date of passing of removal order i.e. 29.11.1999. Under those circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.127 of 2001 dated 14.5.2004 is modified and to be read as under: “The Respondent-Management shall treat the removal order passed on 29.11.1999 as retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 29.11.1999. Petitioner is entitled for all the retiral benefits, as per law”. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 8.4.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3653 of 2005 8.4.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3653 of 2005 Date: 8th April, 2010 Between: S.Malleswara Rao .. Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Palakonda Depot, Srikakulam district & another. .. Respondents