IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25729 of 2006 Between: Patarapalli Appa Rao, s/o late Simhadri, D.No.52-3-11, Boolokamata Gudi, Old Rasapuvaripalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 the Assistant Works Manager-II, Zonal Work Shop, APSRTC, V.T.Agraharam, Vizianagaram. 2 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for records in I.D.NO.215/2001 dt.22-1-2005 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and quash the same is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Ist respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits alongwith backwages, and 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.KARRI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.APPAIAH SARMA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25729 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Hammer man in the year 1986 in the Zonal Work shop. On 26.05.2000, he was found intoxicated while on duty. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued and departmental enquiry was conducted. The 1st respondent removed the petitioner from service, through an order, dated 07.12.2000. Departmental remedies of appeal and review were not successful for the petitioner. Therefore, he approached the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, by filing I.D.No.215 of 2001 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court passed an award, dated 22.01.2005, dismissing the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he was not subjected to any medical examination, before recording a finding to the effect that he is intoxicated. He submits that the punishment imposed against him is disproportionate and his livelihood is effected. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner is in the habit of consuming alcohol even while on duty. It is also stated that on as many as 13 occasions, punishment of deferment of annual increments was imposed, and thrice, he was suspended; and despite that, there was no improvement, on his conduct. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is accused of being under the influence of alcohol while on duty. The charge framed against him reads as under: “For having attended to your duties of angular cutting from 07.30 hours to 17.00 hours on 26.5.2000 in Body CO Section under the influence of alcohol as detected by the Alcohol Testing Machine at about 09.30 hours in the presence of on duty Security Guard and other Supervisors, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (xv) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” It was pointed out that on noticing that the petitioner was in intoxicated condition, he was subjected to breathing analysis test, which revealed positive. The charge framed against the petitioner was held proved and the 1st respondent removed him from service. Having regard to the post held by the petitioner and that the entire family is dependant upon him, this Court has its own sympathies for him. However, it cannot be extended beyond a point. The past conduct of the petitioner reveals that the punishments imposed on as many as 13 occasions, and suspension on three occasions, did not have any positive effect on him. The conduct of the petitioner had the effect of spoiling the atmosphere at work place, apart from posing danger to fellow employees. The Labour Court observed that the nature of duties to be discharged by the petitioner is such that intoxication is likely to result in the hammer being directed against individuals also. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner ought to have been subjected to medical test, he is not able to place any provision of law or decided case in support of his contention. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 13.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25729 of 2006 Date: 13.08.2008 JSU