( 1 ) THIS appeal by the management of the a. P. State Road Transport Corporation is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17-8-2000 in Writ Petition no. 21615 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE above writ petition was filed by the first respondent delinquent employee calling in question the award passed by the industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, visakhapatnam dated 18-12-1995 in I. D. No. 148 of 1992.

( 3 ) THE background facts leading to filing of the writ petition are briefly noted as under: While the petitioner was serving as conductor in a casual leave vacancy at palasa Depot of the Road Transport corporation in Srikakulam District, a charge memo containing three charges was issued to him alleging misconduct under the A. P. State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct) Regulations. The first charge being that he failed to observe the mandatory rule of "issue and start"; the second charge that he re-issued nine tickets of Re. 1/- denomination to a batch of nine passengers and the third charge that he closed all denominations in SR, except re. l/- denominations upto stage No. 5. The enquiry officer appointed by the disciplinary authority after conducting enquiry against the petitioner found all the charges proved by substantive evidence. The disciplinary authority on a consideration of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and after due application of mind thought it appropriate to remove the petitioner delinquent from service to enforce discipline in the work force. Accordingly, the petitioner was removed from service by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the said action of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner instituted I. D. No. 148 of 1992 in the industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, visakhapatnam. The Labour Court on reappraisal of the entire evidence on record sustained the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. The Labour Court further exercising discretion under Sec. ll-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), did not think it just and proper to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed on the delinquent employee. The result was that the I. D. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. That led to the petitioner filing the above writ petition in this Court.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding which is at variance with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer or the Industrial Tribunal-cum- labour Court. On the other hand, even the learned Single Judge, as could be seen from the judgment, has recorded that the charges are proved. However, before the learned single Judge, it was contended on behalf of the delinquent-employee that the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge by the order under appeal disposed of the writ petition directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service without back wages and other attendant benefits. The management of the Road Transport corporation being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge has come up by way of this writ appeal.

( 5 ) WE have heard Sri K. Harinath, learned Standing Counsel for the Road transport Corporation. The learned counsel contended that the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner are grave in nature touching the moral turpitude of the petitioner/delinquent and therefore the disciplinary authority was fully justified in imposing the penalty of removal on the delinquent and there was absolutely no justification for the learned Single Judge to grant the relief of reinstatement to such an employee.

( 6 ) THE law relating to the scope of judicial review of disciplinary action taken by a disciplinary authority is very much circumscribed and limited by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and the High court. Judicial review essentially deals with the manner in which the decision is made an