IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26160 OF 2012 Between; The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Razole, East Godavari District. / ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Depot Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Razole, East Godavari District Rep by Sri G.N. Rao, Driver, E-600855. ...RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the form of WRIT OF CERTIORARI (a) call for the records pertaining to and related to award passed by the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No. 63 of 2008 dated 14.08.2011 and quash or set aside the same by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law corporation has conducted the enquiry duly following the procedure prescribed in the corporation regulations; and (b) Consequently declare that the 2"^^ respondent is not entitled for any relief since the 2'^^ respondent committed misconduct. as the I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 33333 OF 2012^ 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 suspend the award passed by the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No. 63 of 2008 dated 07-07-2011. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.SATYANARAYAN MURTHY, SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI S.A.RAZAK, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER % APHC010550702012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N EdK [3457] WRIT PETITION NO: 26160/2012 Between: The Depot Manager, Apsrtc ...PETITIONER AND The Honble Industrial Tribunalcum and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR 2.SARAZAK The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the award passed in I.D.No.63 of 2008, whereby the Labour Court set aside the punishment imposed by the 2'^^ respondent. The petitioner imposed the punishment of deferment of the annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, besides directing the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards 2. cost of damages. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent, while working as a driver, caused an accident on 26.06.2006, which resulted in damage to the vehicle bearing No. AP11 Z 5838, apart from injuries to a TV operator and others. A charge of rash and negligent driving was framed against the petitioner for his gross negligence while driving, respondent submitted his explanation to the charge sheet and the petitioner, after considering the explanation, issued a show-cause notice proposing the imposition of the punishment of deferment of the annual increment, along with the recovery of Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of damages. The 2'"'^ respondent was imposed with the said punishment through proceedings dated 14.10.2006. 3. nd The 2 4. The 2"'' respondent filed I.D.No.63 of 2008 and the Labour Court, after considering the issue in totality, held that the imposition of a major punishment without conducting any enquiry was not justified. The Labour Court gave a categorical finding that the punishment imposed on the petitioner therein was grossly disproportionate and also without conducting any enquiry, these grounds, the Labour Court set aside the impugned proceedings. On Vt I 3 This Court finds no grounds tO' interfere with the well- considered award passed by the Labour Court and the finding that the punishment imposed on the 2 5. nd respondent was without conducting any enquiry is to the suffice for dismissing the writ petition. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTON^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri K.Satyanarayan Murthy, SC tor APSRTC.[OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri S.A.Razak, SC for APSRTC.[OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies. gi 'TOT HIGH COURT DATED:06/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.26160 of 2012 ANO«^ I 10 MAR 2025 ^ ^ . Current Section . ^ m DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS