High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the records relatlng to the award passed in LD.No.33/2013, dt. 20-06-2016, published on 9-9-2016, on the file of the 2nd respondent, and quash the same as being illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the 1st respondent to re-instate the petitioner into service as Conductor with back wages and all attendant benefits Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N PRAVEEN REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.8343 of 2017 Petitioner was appointed as a Casual Conductor in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation w.e.f. 25.12.1986, and his services were regularized on 01.O2.1989. While discharging his duties, on 14.02.2072, the respondents-Corporation alleged that he committed cash and ticket irregularities. Based on the said allegation, the respondent-Corporation issued a charge sheet and placed the petitioner under suspension on O5.03.2012, without furnishing any relevant documents to the charges. The petitioner made several representations requesting the supply of documents; however, the same were not provided by the respondent authorities. Thereafter respondent authority ordered an enquiry, and the enquiry officer conducted an ex-parte enquiry and submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. Based on the said ex-parte enquiry report d.ated, 22.09.2012, the respondents-Corporation removed the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, he frled Appeal, Review petition and Mercy Petition, however, all were rejected by the authorities concerned on 20.LO.2Ol2, 09.tt.2Ol2 and

07.O3.2013 respectively, thereby conhrming the order of removal 2 dated 22.O9.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute invoking the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of tl;re Industrial Disputes Act,l947 (for brevity 'the Act) seeking reinstatement into service with all consequential benelits. The Labour Court, having concluded that the punishment imposed by the respondent-Corporation was valid, dismissed the petition by passing an Award dated 20.06.2076 in I.D. No. 33 of 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit. He further submits that petitioner had rendered over two decades of service, and had not committed any major misconduct during the discharge of his duties in the past. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to law.

3. Sri N.Praveen Reddy, learned Starding Counsel for respondent-Corporation submits that the Labour Court after considering the contentions of both parties and upon perusal of the documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned Award holding that the petitioner had committed major misconduct involving cash and ticket irregularities including the re-issuance of tickets. The Labour Court further held that the domestic =T J enquiry was valid. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the said Award and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

4. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of thg impugned Award passed by the Labour Court, it is e'rident that the respondents_ Corporation issued a charge sheet dated 12.02.2OI2, containing the following charges;

1. "For having made the closing entries in the STAR document as having Operated the trip from Kotr to Tallagadda and track to Koti without Physically operating the trip causing loss of revenue to the Corporation and inconvenience to the travelling public which amounts to mis-conduct under Reg.28(:o<xii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations."

2. "For having forcibly snatched the STAR document from the halds of Checking ofhcial ald chewed the STAR document to destroy the Evidence which amounts to misconduct under Reguiation No.28(;oo<) of APSRTC trmployees(conduct)Regulations, 1963.;

3. "For having misbehaved and attacked on the checking officials by Shouting loudly "BACHAO, BACHAO" and assaulted one of the Checking officials Sri K.Nathanial , E.9Z64O,TTI on his chest who received minor injuries, which amounts to misconduct under Regulations No.28(viii) APSRTC Emplol,ees(conduct)Regulations, 1 963.,,

5. The respondents-Corporation after receiving the explanation, had ordered for regular enquiry into the matter by appointing enquiry officer; during the course of enquiry the petitioner was given all opportunities to defend his case, however he was not attended to the enqpiry, hence an ex-parte enquiry was conducted by the trnquiry Officer dated. O7.O2.2O72. Later 4 petitioner submitted his objections to the Enquiry officer's report dated 27.O7.2012 and the disciplinary authority after considering the ex-parte enquiry report and objections raised by the petitioner to trnquiry office report, removed the petitioner from service on

22.09.2012 and the said order was conhrmed in the appeal, in review and mercy petition on 29.1O.2012, 09.11..2012 and 07 .O3.2OI3 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute before the labour Court. The labour Court after considering both the parties and the documentary evidence vide Exs.W-l to W-9 of the petitioner and Exs.M-1 to M-33 of the respondents and after hearing both the parties passed the impugned Award stating that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the findings of the Enquiry Offrcer were based on cogent evidence, The labour Court after considering the evidence specifically held that the petitioner miserably failed to prove his case that the checking ofhcia-ls has torn the SR and the respondent has proved the case that the petitioner has intentionally skipped one trip and try to destroy the evidence against him for which punishment imposed against petitioner is valid. l , I I I i I 5

6. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Misceilaneous petitions pending, if any, shal1 stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secrffiorrrcen \ To, 1 2 a J One CC to SRl. P GOVINDA RAJULU Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI N PRAVEEN REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 4 KKS BS HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ORDER WP.No.8343 of 2017 ,r l-!:: Q:' .\ o.) I 2 JUL 1it\ ,1. 'I + '',:4; , -,.u;r'''' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ),,-