APHC010993652018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 48143/2018 Between: 1. S.PRASAD, S/O. UDAY RAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, EX- DRIVER, NMR COLONY, DURGA BAZAAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-40. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY.ITS SECRETARY, ROADS AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, TULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUMLABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE VICECHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C., RTC HOUSE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 writ order of direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records and quash the Nil Award in ID No. 69/2009 dated 25.03.2010 on the file of the Honorable Court 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principals of Natural, justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Driver and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant leave to file the counter affidavit in WP.No. 48143/2018 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC 2. GP FOR LABOUR (AP) 3. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 48143 OF 2018 ORDER: The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to issue writ order of direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records and quash the Nil Award in ID No. 69/2009 dated 25.03.2010 on the file of the Honorable Court 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principals of Natural, justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Driver and pass…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was working as a driver in the office of the Depot Manager. While so, on 13.06.2006, the petitioner drove the bus bearing No.AP 11Z 5755, an express service from Rajhmundry to Visakhapatnam, which starts at 17.00 hours at Rajahmundry up to Murari, a village approximately 40kms away from the Rajahmundry, the petitioner experienced some reeling sensation, as he was chewing „Panparag‟ and therefore, stopped the bus at Murari, having felt that it was not safe to drive the bus. The petitioner was undergoing de-addiction treatment and after discharge, the petitioner has almost given up his habit of drinking and was taking Homeopathy medicine. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that one of the passengers informed the APSRTC officials of Rajahmundry that the petitioner was driving the bus in intoxicating condition. Upon such complaint the respondents ordered regular departmental inquiry by framing three (3) charges against the petitioner. An inquiry officer was also appointed and respondent No.4 being an inquiry 4 officer, after conducting due inquiry submitted a report on 13.02.2007, holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges. Basing on the said inquiry report, the petitioner was removed from the service, vide proceedings bearing No.M1/118(5)/06-VSP, dated 07.04.2007. Aggrieved by which the petitioner approached the Labour Court vide I.D.No.67/2009, under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same was dismissed vide orders dated 25.03.2010. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC representing the respondents. 5. On perusal of the facts as narrated by the petitioner in his affidavit, it can be observed that admittedly, the petitioner was in the habit of consuming alcohol, thereafter, underwent de-addiction treatment, which itself establishes that the petitioner has a habit of consuming alcohol. The respondents after conducting a detailed inquiry by framing three (3) charges against the petitioner, removed the petitioner from the service vide order dated 07.04.2007. Subsequently, the same was confirmed in appeal preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached the Labour Court and raised industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, questioning the correctness and the legality of his termination, particularly on the charge that he had continued on duty and drove the vehicle under intoxication. 5 6. The Labour Court held that, when a domestic inquiry is conducted in accordance with law, the Court shall not interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Interference is warranted only when the findings are perverse or when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. The Labour Court relied upon the judgments reported in 2006 (111) FLR 1187 and 2005 LLR 1089 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that unless the decision of the disciplinary authority is illogical and the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, the Court shall not interfere with the finding of the fact or with the quantum of punishment. 7. Furthermore, the material on record demonstrates that the petitioner was subjected to breath analyzer test which had reported positive. It is also proved that the petitioner is guilty of the mis-conduct alleged against him. However, driving a passenger bus under intoxication cannot be treated as a minor mis-conduct, as number of lives will be affected by that mis-conduct. Therefore, the termination of the petitioner from service cannot be called as disproportionate or shockingly excessive. Upon duly examining the domestic and preliminary inquiry reports, the statements of the petitioner and other witnesses, and the medical certificate, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted. 8. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and same is liable to be dismissed. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was appointed on 01.08.1992 and finally terminated from service on 07.04.2007, he is entitled 6 for all the benefits, till the date of his termination such as gratuity towards which he has contributed and the other similarly benefits. 9. In view of the same, instead of touching the merits, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit a representation enclosing a statement regarding his entitlements. Upon receiving the same, the respondent authority shall consider and release the amounts for which the petitioner is legally entitled, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent authorities regarding his entitlements. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 28.09.2026 JS / APSK 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 48143 OF 2018 Date: 28.09.2026 JS / APSK