APHC010468912013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 34136/2013 Between: 1. MATTA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O KONDALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CONDUCTOR, APSRTC., TUNI DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE A P S R T C, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC., TUNI DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the award published in G.O.Rt.No.1737 dt.15.11.2011 where under to the extent of denying the relief in I.D.No.94/2008 dt.19.9.2011 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam by declaring the impugned award as illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set-aside IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 42476 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2 fix a date for hearing the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the Award passed in I.D. No. 94 of 2008 dated 19.09.2011 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, to the extent of denying back wages to the petitioner and further imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two (02) years with cumulative effect. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent-Corporation in the year 1996 and that, vide proceedings dated 12.10.2007 the respondent authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner, after exhausting the other remedies available to him, filed I.D. No. 94 of 2008 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, challenging the order of removal. The Labour Court has modified the punishment of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. However, it imposed the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two (02) years with cumulative effect and also disentitled the petitioner to back wages. 3. The petitioner was charged with allegations of misconduct and insubordination and an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and insubordination and, as such, proposed disciplinary action against him. The Disciplinary Authority, after verifying the enquiry report, 4 deemed it appropriate to impose the punishment of removal from service and his suspension period would be treated as not on duty. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was conducted without granting any opportunity to the petitioner and that a nominal enquiry has resulted in imposing the severe punishment of removal from service. It is submitted that the petitioner did not resort to either insubordination or any acts of misconduct, as on the day when he was called upon to attend duty, which was not in accordance with the duty chart. The petitioner had refused on the ground that he had to take his children to a doctor and that he had a valid reason for not attending duty other than the duty assigned to him as per the duty chart. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of K. Noorulla vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1 in W.P. No. 2867 of 2021, whereby the learned Judge of this Hon’ble Court had held that when the punishment was found to be illegal or unjustified, the employee would be entitled to full back wages. 6. Sri K. Srinivasa Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-A.P.S.R.T.C., on the contrary, submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was granted ample opportunity and that the petitioner had also participated in the enquiry. It is submitted that the petitioner was found guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination and the finding of 1 2024 Supreme (Online)(AP) 19125; 2024 APHC 48911 5 the Labour Court on that aspect is also vivid and unambiguous. It is submitted that in pursuance of the Award, the petitioner has been reinstated into service and is at present working. It is submitted that no grounds are made out for unsettling the findings of the Labour Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-A.P.S.R.T.C. Perused the record. 8. The short point for consideration is whether this Court can unsettle the findings of the Tribunal and to what extent. 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was charged with certain allegations and an enquiry in that regard was conducted. The Enquiry Officer has submitted the report after recording the depositions of the concerned staff who were available as on the date of the incident. The Enquiry Officer has given a categorical finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and insubordination and, as such, proposed the punishment of removal from service. The Labour Court, while passing the Award, has also found that the petitioner is guilty of insubordination and that Charges 1 and 2 were proved against the workman. The Labour Court also held that Charges 3 and 4 are not proved and found that the workman had exhibited gross insubordination and declined to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Labour Court also considered that the petitioner had put in more than 15 years of service and, in order to grant one opportunity to the petitioner, had taken a 6 lenient view and modified the order of removal into deferment of annual increments for a period of two (02) years with cumulative effect. 10. On the facts of this case, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable, as the punishment was found to be disproportionate and the Labour Court had modified the punishment and the petitioner has been reinstated into service. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the punishment which was imposed on the petitioner and the subsequent reinstatement, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice can be met if the Award of the Labour Court is further modified by modifying the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two (02) years with cumulative effect to that of deferment of annual increments for a period of two (02) years without cumulative effect, and the remaining portion of the Award shall stand undisturbed. 11. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 07.04.2026 PNS