IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6294 of 2000 Between: R.Bheem Rao S/o.Rama Rao, R/o.Nikalpur village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad A.P. .....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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Labour Court-II in passing award dated 26-2-1998 in I.D.No.104/1996 published vide G.O.Rt.No.467, dt.20-3-1998 as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, unjust, contrary to law facts and set aside the same and issue consequential by directing the 2nd respondent; (a) to treat the service of the petitioner with continuity from the date of suspension i.e., 22-9-1995 to till reinstatement for the purpose of seniority, promotion, etc., (b) award all attendant benefits, increments, continuously till now. Counsel for the Petitioner : MRK.M.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by a Conductor working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, dated 26th of February 1998, passed in I.D.No.104 of 1996. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on daily wage basis in the year 1988 and his services were regularized in the year 1989. On 07.09.1995, when the petitioner was conducting the bus on the route from Nizamabad to Dharambadur, a check was exercised, and the checking officials have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. In view of the report submitted by the checking officials, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a charge sheet was issued to him, by framing the following 8 charges : “1. For having failed to issue tickets to four (4) passengers even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 ps. from each from their boarding point itself who boarded your bus at Kandhakurthy stage No.8 and found alighting at stage No.9, ex.stages 8 to 9 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger found alighting without ticket at Bellur stage No.9 who boarded in your bus at Kandbadurthy stage No.8, ex.stages 8 to 9 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. (vi) (a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having failed to observe the Rule ‘issue and start’ which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having instigated the ticketless passengers not to put their sign/thumb impression on ticketless passengers statement, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 5. For having instigated the passengers in the bus and the public and intending passengers to rebel against the TTIs and thus prevented the TTIs from discharging their legitimate duties by adopting tactful method of weeping and falling on the feet of the TTIs as well as the ticketless passengers, crying out loudly that you will be dismissed from service, if the ticketless passengers put their sign/thumb impression on the statement of ticketless passengers recorded by a co-passenger, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 6. For having refusled to attest on the ticketless passenger statement which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 7. For having refused to acknowledge the charge memo No.0619224 & 0619702, dt.7-9-95 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963. 8. For having snatched away S.R.No.A2/7456760, dated 7-9-95 after opening the tray nos. before obtaining TST and refused to give back to record the check particulars in the relevant column on the reverse of the S.R. and also close the ticket tray nos. after obtaining TPTs., which constitutellllls misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” 3. With reference to the above charges, the petitioner has filed his explanation, but however, as it was not satisfactory, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry officer. In the domestic inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer has submitted the inquiry report by recording a finding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Based on the same, the petitioner was removed from service, by an order dated 06.12.1995. Though the petitioner has availed the further remedy of appeal and review before the appellate and review authorities, both are ended in dismissal vide orders dated 16.07.1996 and 16.08.1996 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.104 of 1996, by filing an application under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even the Industrial Tribunal, while recording a finding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, has ordered to appoint the petitioner without giving the benefit of continuity of service pursuant to first appointment. 4. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the Tribunal, without recording valid reasons, has denied the benefit of continuity of service. With reference to the above said argument, it is to be noted that in the domestic inquiry proceedings, all the charges levelled against the petitioner, are held proved, and the said findings are being confirmed by both the appellate and review authorities. Further, even the Tribunal also concurred with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, however it has imposed the lesser punishment by modifying the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. As much as the charges are serious, and in view of the fact that the Tribunal has already given the benefit of appointment to the petitioner, I do not see any merit in this writ petition for grant of any further relief. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th February 2009. ajr