IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16511 OF 2005 Between: ^-^00165 Conductor, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah c about 40 years, R/o.Allupuram Post, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore district. ...Petitioner aged AND The Depot Manager. APSRTC, Gudur Depot, Gudur, Nellore district. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pieased to issue an order or direction nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records inclusive of and praying that in may more particularly one in the or order or direction by issuing rule nisi and up to the order passed by the presiding officer Labour Court in I.D.No.133/99 dt.4-12-2004 pubiished in G.O.Rdt.No.268 dt.24-1-2005 and quash the same Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V MALLIK APSRTC SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU The Court made the following: Order SC For •V APHC010279272005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16511/2005 Between: K.madhusudhan Rao, Nellore District. ...PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager Gudur Nellore District ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VMALLIK Counsel for the Respondent: 1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC The Court made the following order: The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the respondent corporation as conductor in the year 1986. While so, based on the ticket irregularities committed by him on 30.04.1998 and after farsical enquiry, a penalty of removal from service was imposed on him by an order dated 26.09.1998. The said order was also confirmed in the appeal and review filed by him. Questioning the same, the petitioner had raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 wherein the Labour Court has passed the impugned award dated 04.12.2004 without appreciating the facts^ and law in right perspective. Hence the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for APSRTC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, the Labour Court did not refer to the spot explanation and statement of concerned passenger, which shows that the impugned award was vitiated by total non-application of mind. Further, the Labour Court has failed to exercise Section 11-A jurisdiction. Therefore, the award impugned is liable to be set aside and accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. : On the other hand, learned Standing counsel on counter submitted that, the petitioner is involved in serious cash and ticket irregularity case. During checking it was found that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to a batch of 13 passengers even after collecting fare from them and closed SR of all denominations upto Stage No.6 (where the check took place) constitutes misconduct under Eg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Based on the allegations petitioner was charge sheeted and after going through the explanation and entire evidences available record, the respondent removed the petitioner from service and the which on same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Review Authority and further confirmed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case warranting the interference of this Court and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both of learned 5. counsel. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Industrial Tribunal 6. cum Labour Court has taken into consideration the spot statement of the petitioner and also the fact admitted by the petitioner the he has collected fare from the 13 passengers and did not issue tickets to them and at the time of checking at stage 6, the checking officials confiscated those tickets. It would further indicate that, the Labour Court has also considered the explanation given to the charge sheet and thereby came to a conclusion that the petitioner collected fare from the 13 passengers and closed the SR without punching the tickets and accordingly held that the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service is in the proportion to the charges. This Court would not lose sight of the well settled legal principle, which is just and essential in order to take the lis to its logical end. In State of A.P vs S. Sree Rama Rao^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealt with powers of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in respect of 7. departmental enquiries and held as follows:- “21. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Articie 226 of the Constitution as a court of appeai over the decision of the authorities hoiding a departmentai enquiry against a pubiic servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry AIR 1963 SC 1723 A IS held by an authority competent in that behal,f and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the dccepted and which evidence enquiry has may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an Independent findiy on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by considerations extraneous to the evidence and the case some , „ merits of the or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations Or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on simitar grounds But the departmental authorities are. if the enquiry is otherwise property held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution....” 8. Further, in Union of India & after enunciating the relevant legal position High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution Labour Court awards and held as follows; ors Vs P.Gunasekaran^ , the Apex Court codified the powers of the Hon’ble of India pertaining to “13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India Court shall not; reappreciate the evidence; interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; go into the adequacy of the evidence; the High i) ii) ; iii) ' (2015) 2 see 610 iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based, correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” V) Vi) vii) 9. Thus the above legal position makes it clear that, in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority and has a limited scope of interference in the Labour Court's award, particularly with respect to factual aspects. 10. It is trite to mention that, the Labour Court has considered the instant lis at length and came to unequivocal findings in respect of facts in the issue. It opined that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law and that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice or any other statutory provision in vogue. In fact, the Writ Petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and found the charges proved. 11. It is relevant to mention that, the respondent Corporation is a public utility service and the very appointment of the petitioner was to abide by the mandatory rules and regulations. The mandatory rules stipulate that, the ^ petitioner should complete the issuance of tickets correctly at the boarding point itself, then move the bus for further journey and close the S.R. before the arrival of next fare stage. However, the petitioner herein violated the same by moving the bus without completing the pre-requisites and reached the next > stage without ensuring the issuance of a valid ticket to the passenger on board. Thus, the petitioner has violated the Rule of “Issue and Start” of the Respondent Corporation. In the case of U.P State Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma^, the Supreme Court while dealing with the Labour Court Awards 12. more particularly, regarding the irregularities committed by the conductor in not issuing the tickets even after receiving the amount, has taken a serious the cases of held that showing sympathy in note and corruption/misappropriation is uncalled and opposed to public interest, regardless of the amount of money involved. In the light of the reasons arrived supra and the settled legal position, this Court finds that the Award of the Tribunal does not suffer from any impunity. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon’ble Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur, The Chief Justice on this Thursday, First Day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. ^(2010) 6 see 555 Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI V MALLIK Advocate [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies asa HIGH COURT DATED: 01/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.16511 of 2005 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS