IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 16113 and 18702 of 1999 W.P. No. 16113 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Chilakaluripet Depot, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 G.Malyadri, C/o.Govinda Raj Chowdary, Sri Tirumala Rice Stores, Near Bose Statute, Old Club Road, Kothapet, Guntur. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. .....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 call for the records relating to the award in I.D.NO.105/94 dt:16.3.99 on the file of the Labour Court of issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ of order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition Nos. 16113 and 18702 of 1999 Common Order: As much as both the writ petitions are directed against the award dated 15.02.1999, passed in I.D. No. 105 of 1994 by the Labour Court, Guntur, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 16113 of 1999. The first respondent herein was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 01.08.1985. On the grounds that he misbehaved with the Deputy Superintendent, Statistical Section of CPT depot, assaulted and abused the Driver and the on duty Controller and also damaged the property of the Corporation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was issued with a charge sheet dated 01.09.1992, framing as many as seven charges. The charges framed against the first respondent read as under. “1. For having misbehaved with Sri N. Mukteswara Rao, Dy. Supdt (T) in the statistical section of CPT depot at 16-40 hrs on 30.08.92 by throwing the SR bundles on him and abusing him by using filthy language, which constitutes misconduct vide Clause No.(viii) and (xxi) of Reg. 28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having assaulted one driver Sri J. Ezra, E.55538 of CPT depot who is available in the bus station on 20.08.92 as reported by the on duty controller Sri Shamshuddin, which constitutes misconduct vide Clause No.(xxi) of Reg. 28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having caught hold of the shirt collar of Sri Shamshuddin, on-duty controller in the bus station and dragged him up to the down stairs of DM’s office and abused him in unparliamentary language on 30.08.1992 which constitutes misconduct vide Clause No.(viii) and (xxi) of Reg.28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having damaged the property of the pan shop who is a licencee, by breaking the glass bottom which constitutes misconduct vide Clause No.(xxxi) of Reg.28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 5. For having created unhealthy in the bus station causing threat to the employees and the traveling passengers without your highhanded and unsocial behaviour which constitutes misconduct vide clause No.xxxii of Reg.28 of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963. 6. For having badly damaged the image of the Corporation by your unruly behaviour in the eyes of the public and attracted adverse remarks in the press, which constitutes misconduct vide Clause No.xxxii of Reg.28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 7. For having arrested by the SI of Police, CPT town PS where a case has been registered vide Crime No.167/92/u/Sec.353 and 427 of IPC dated 30.08.1992 on your unruly behaviour which constitutes misconduct vide Clause No.xxxi of Reg. 28 of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.” The first respondent submitted his explanation on 14.09.1992 denying the said charges. Having not satisfied with the said explanation, a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted his report dated 25.02.1993, by recording a finding that all the charges framed against the first respondent were proved. Based on the said report and after issuing a show cause notice dated 02.03.1993, calling upon the first respondent –workman to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service for the misconduct proved, the Depot Manager, Chilakaluripet depot, by proceedings No.03/87(3)/92-CPT, dated 16.03.1993, removed the first respondent from service. Though the first respondent preferred an appeal before the departmental authorities, the same was rejected. Thereafter, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Guntur by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The Labour Court, Guntur, by impugned award dated 15.02.1999, passed in I.D. No. 105 of 1994, has set aside the order of removal dated 16.03.1993 and directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the first respondent into service with continuity of service but without back wages. Against the said award of the Labour Court, the Depot Manager of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation filed W.P. No. 16113 of 1999. Whereas, the first respondent-workman filed W.P. No.18702 of 1999 questioning the said award in so far as not granting back wages. This Court, while admitting the writ petition in W.P. No. 16113 of 1999, granted interim suspension of the impugned award, but subsequently, on the vacate stay petition filed by the first respondent- workman, the same was vacated, and pursuant to the said orders, according to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation, the first respondent was reinstated into service. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits that as much as the enquiry was conducted by following the procedure contemplated under Regulation 35(A) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967 by sending notices to the given address of the first respondent, the Labour Court erred in interfering with the order of removal passed against the first respondent, without assigning any valid reasons. It is further submitted that as much as the Criminal Court has acquitted the first respondent on the same set of charges only on the ground that the witnesses have become hostile, but not on merits, the Labour Court also erred in relying on the judgment of the Criminal Court. Learned counsel for the first respondent-workman, on the other hand, would submit that as much as the enquiry was conducted without giving any opportunity of hearing to the first respondent and as he was kept out of service by virtue of the order of removal, which was passed illegally, as such he is entitled for backwages for the period he was out of service. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and the learned counsel for the first respondent-workman. Regulation 35(A) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967, deals with manner of service of communication, notices or orders on employees. A reading of the said provision, it is clear that a notice under registered post is required to be given to the address furnished by the employee to conduct enquiry. Under Regulation 35(A)(4), if such copy is undelivered it empowers the authority to display notice for a period of not less than one week on the notice board of the office and to proceed with the enquiry. In the instant case, though the first respondent would contend that before passing the order of removal no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, the fact, however, remains the Enquiry Officer sent notices to the address furnished by the first respondent, which was available in the office records, but the same were returned unserved with an endorsement “No such addressee”. As the notice sent to the first respondent returned unserved, a copy of notice was displayed in the notice board of Chilakaluripet depot for a period of one week as contemplated under Regulation 35(A) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967, and the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry. In view of the procedure followed, it cannot be said that any illegality was committed in the manner of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal erred in recording it’s finding that the enquiry was conducted without proper notice to the first respondent-workman. Further, the Tribunal has relied on the judgment of the Criminal Court, in which, the workman was acquitted from the charges. While it is true that he was acquitted from the charges in the criminal proceedings, but acquittal in such proceedings, will not, in all cases, automatically result in nullifying the order of removal passed in the departmental proceedings. The findings recorded by the competent Criminal Court can be considered in departmental proceedings, but at the same time, further examination is required with regard to the similarity of the charges and evidence on record, etc. As much as the said aspect is not considered, in normal course, the matter should have been remitted back for fresh consideration by the Tribunal, but keeping in mind the fact that the employee was removed as early as in the year 1993, and the Labour Court has passed the award in the year 1999, and these writ petitions are pending in this Court for the last about 10 years, this Court is of the view that the interests of justice would be met if the order of reinstatement is confirmed, by denying the backwages. For the aforesaid reasons, both these writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 17.02.2009 Nsr