1 APHC010346322018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16229/2018 Between: The Depot. Manager, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND T R S Manyam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR (AP) 2. M V PRATAP REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16229/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the award made in I.D.No. 58 of 2015 dated 17.03.2017 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapur which was published in the gazette vide G.O.Rt. No. 339 dated 09.06.2017 as illegal arbitrary and quash the same and pass…” 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the Petitioners. None represented for the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the respondent No.1 worked as Driver in the Petitioners’ Corporation. While so, he has consumed alcohol. When it came to the notice of the authorities, they have initiated disciplinary proceedings and in that enquiry he is found guilty. He was removed from service against which, he preferred appeal, that was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred revision, that was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 preferred I.D.no.58 of 2015 before the Labour Court, Anantapur, that was partly allowed by setting aside the orders of the Petitioner No.1 which was confirmed by the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 with modification by imposing punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of one year without cumulative effect not entitled for any back-wages from the date of removal till the date of order but with continuity of service without effecting his 3 seniority and suspension period treated as on duty. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Anantapur, the present petition is preferred. Learned Counsel finally would pray to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order in I.D.No.58 of 2015. 4. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, this Court is of the view, that there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order for the following reasons. Learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has rightly observed that the respondent- Driver has attended duties on 17.01.2014. The authorities found him under the influence of alcohol since the breath analyzer has given a ‘beep’ sound but no alcohol percentage is recorded. In that view, the learned Judge has modified the punishment in the above lines. This Court is of the view that there are no grounds warranting interference of this Court in the impugned Order. Learned Judge of the Labour Court has rightly came to the finding that in absence of percentage of the alcohol consumed by the respondent-Driver. He cannot be imposed with the punishment of removal. The punishment is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the employee. As such, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court rightly intervened by modifying the punishment. 4 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 25.03.2025 UPS 5 63 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.16229 of 2018 Dated.25.03.2025 UPS