IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT AMARAVATI THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI WRIT PETITION NO: 16197 OF 2nifi PRATAPA Between: 1. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Transport Corporation, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Andhra Pradesh State Road Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3. The Executive Director Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Porporation, Kadapa Zone, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ...Petitioners AND 1. K. Venkatesh, S/o. K.P. Subbanna, Aged about 38 years. Driver, E- 112446, R/O. Pedda Cheppali (V and P), Kambalapuram District (M), Kadapa 2. The Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Anantapuramu Anantapuramu Dist. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of trie Constitution of India is filed praying a m <he circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High ourt may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to the avKard made i calling for records relating in I.D.No. 193 of 2015, dated 28.01.2017 on the file of which was published in the gazette vide the Labdur Court, Anantapur G.O.Rt.No. 274, dated 15.05.2017, as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same tu lA NO: 1 OF 7ni« Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of the award in respect of continuity service made in 53 I.D.No .193 of 2015 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ananthapur. Counsel for the Petitioners; SRI. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR the Court made the following: % APHC010346192018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NQ; 16197/7ni« Be^een: The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) AND K Vpnkatesh and Others Coi^nsel for the Petitioner(S): l.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Coi^nsel for the Respondent(S): l.GP FOR LABOUR (AP) iv PADMANABHA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: ... 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.l93 of 2015 dated 28.01.2017 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapur, which was published in the gazette K/c/eG.O.Rt.No.274, dated 15.05.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same." 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: i) The Writ Petitioners are the officials of the APSRTC, Kadapa District. Respondent No.l is appointed as a Contract Driver on 24.03.2007 and his service was regularised with effect from 01.01.2010. II) The Depot Manager, Kadapa gave a report on 29.09.2014 against respondent No.l on the allegation that respondent No. 1/Driver came to the 2 control point, Kadapa bus station in drunken condition and misbehaved with hii by raising his finger towards the Depot Manager and abused him in unparliamentary language. The Respondent No.l also misbehaved with the Assistant Manager (Traffic) and uttered unparliamentary words against him. Thereafter, the Respondent No.l /Driver was taken to Police Station, where the Circle Inspector of Police conducted an alcoholic test. As per the alcoholic test report dated 29.09.2014, respondent No.l was in a drunken condition and the contents of alcohol is 200 mg/100 ml. iii) In view of prima facie evidence on record, the petitioner No.l suspended Respondent No.l and issued a charge sheet dated 18.10.2014 to the Petitioner for the following charges: 1. For having entered into the premises i.e., bus station, Kadapa in drunken condition on 29-09-2014 at 11.00 hrs., of the Corporation, which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees' (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having misbehaved with the Depot Manager, Kadapa by uttering unparliamentary words "veedi alini denga veede nannu depot spare petindi ani and with the Asst. Manager (Traffic) by uttering the unparliamentary words "Deenini thittinaanani complaint chesindanta" on 29-9-2014 at 11-00 hrs., causing shame before the subordinate staff and travelling public and mental humiliation to the Depot Manager and Assistant Manager (Traffic) which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg.28 (xxi) of Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having tarnished the image of the Corporation in the eyes of travelling public by uttering un-parliamentary language against Depot Manager and Asst. Traffic Manager (T), Kadapa depot on 29-9-2014 at 11.00 hours which constitutes misconduct under Reg. No.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) regulations, 1963. APSRTC 3 iv) The respondent No. 1/Driver submitted his explanation stating that on that specific date, he was not allotted to any duty and he was not at the bus I station and the allegations levelled against him are baseless and no medical examination was conducted. As per the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, charges were proved. On 21.02.2015, a show cause notice was issued to the I Respondent No.l and on 28.02.2015, Depot Manager, passed orders removing Respondent No. 1/Driver from service. Appeals preferred to Petitioners 2 and 3 were rejected i//r/e Proceedings dated 22.08.2015 and 06.11.2015 respectively. v) Questioning the same. Respondent No.l/Driver filed ID No.193 of 2015 befbre respondent No.2, wherein. Learned Presiding Officer allowed the ID in part vide Award dated 28.01.2017. The operative portion of the Award reads thus: " In the result the Petition is allowed in part. The Orders passed by the Respondent confirmed by the and Appellate authorities for removal of the Petitioner is hereby modiifed by reinstating the Petitioner into service by deferment of annual increments for a period of three years with cumulative effect without back wages till passing of the Award without effecting his seniority. // vi) Petitioners/APSRTC filed this Writ of Certiorari seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Petitioners/APSRTC and Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.l and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour for Respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 4 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Petitioners/APSRTC would subm, that respondent No.2/Labour Court did not appreciate the material facts in a proper perspective and that when respondent No. 1/Driver filed a memo not disputing the domestic enquiry, the findings of the enquiry officer are justified. Learned Counsel would submit the Labour Court failed to appreciate the material allegations of misconduct on the part of respondent No. 1/Driver which contrary to the Regulations of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. Further, are previous conduct of the respondent No. 1/Driver is not clean and he was censured on three occasions and amount was recovered from his salary five times. The Standing Counsel prays for setting aside the impugned Award dated 28.01.201/ in ID i\jo.i93 of 2015 passed by Respondent No.2. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Driver would submit that on the date of offence, respondent No. 1/Driver duty and that he was outside the bus stand compound wall since NMD strike is going on. The police personnel disbursed the mob and, in that course, the police taken respondent No.l to police station. Learned counsel would submit that the allegations are baseless and no medical examination was conducted respondent No.l and that the Enquiry Officer closed the was not on on the matter with predetermined mind and arbitrarily held that the charges are proved. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.2/Labour Court appreciated the in a right perspective and modified the punishment. Therefore, there are no valid grounds to interfere in the impugned Award, which is passed by 2"" respondent matter 5 after appreciating the material facts on record. Hence, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material on record, th^ allegation levelled against the respondent no. 1/Driver is that on the said date, he allegedly misbehaved with the respondent authorities and abused them in Unparliamentary words. The explanation of the Petitioner is that on the said date, NMU strike is going on and he was outside the depot and he has nothing I to do with the allegations made against him and that he is innocent of the office. In this regard, he submitted his explanation to the charges framed against him. Being not satisfied with his explanation, respondent No.l issued the Proceedings by ftaming three charges against him. The enquiry report is the basis to come to the just conclusion on the facts of the case. No enquiry report is placed on record. 7. Further, respondent No.2/Labour Court while dealing with the Point Nos.3 & 4, relied upon the decision in B.Prakash Gupta, v. M/s.Delton Cable Indib (P) Ltd.,^ wherein, it held as under: ".. We are also of the opinion that no responsible employer would ever impose in like circumstances the punishment of dismissal to the Employee and that victimisation or unfair labour practice could well be interred from the conduct of the management in awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker ofifcer of the management by the appellant within the premises of the factory." or 8. Respondent No.2/Labour Court observed that a fair opportunity is to be given to the respondent No.2/Driver to reform himself and not to indulge this [1984] 2 Supreme Court Cases 569 6 type of activities in future and held that the punishment of removal from service imposed against the respondent No. 1/Driver is disproportionate to the charges framed against him. 9. It is a case where an employee abused his higher authorities. The petitioner authorities failed to place sufficient material on record to prove disobedience of the respondent No.l towards his higher authorities. When the totality of the circumstances has been taken into consideration the punishment imposed by the Petitioner authorities is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the respondent No.2. Viewed from any angle, there grounds to interfere with the impugned Award passed by the respondent No.2, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition dismissal. are no deserves 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI. ARAVAIA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to 3. Three CD Copies GP FOR LABOUR, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] KSR HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 ORDER I 22 SEP 2025 " Curcent Saction ^ ^*^^i®espATC^S^ WP.No.16197 of 2018 t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS