( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 9-11-1992 passed in I. D. No. 309 of 1990 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Godav arikhani (for short the labour Court ) declining to grant any relief to the petitioner-delinquent.

( 2 ) WHEN the petitioner was serving as driver in the establishment of the a. P. S. R. T. C, he was issued a Charge Memo. The charge reads as under:"for having found on the Driver s Rest seat of Guntur service which came to depot on 17-11-1988, in fully drunken and unconscious condition while on duty which constitutes serious misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (XXXI) of A. P. S. R. T. C. Employees (Conduct) reg. , 1963 read with item (ix) under note (2) of Regulations of A. P. S. R. T. C. Employees (CC and A) Regulations, 1987.

( 3 ) THE petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge and in that context a departmental Enquiry was held against the petitioner in terms of A. P. S. R. T. C. (CC and a) Regulations. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Enquiry officer, the Depot Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C, adilabad Depot who is the Disciplinary authority under the Regulations passed the proceedings No. 01/214 (2)/88-ADB dated 29-8-1989 removing the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure. The petitioner being aggrieved by the disciplinary action imposed on him by the respondent preferred an appeal and revision within the administration of A. P. S. R. T. C, but without any success. That led to the petitioner instituting I. D. No. 309 of 1990 assailing the validity of the disciplinary action.

( 4 ) THE learned Presiding Officer of the labour Court upon reappraisal of the evidence on record found the petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. Thereafter, the learned Presiding officer of the Labour Court proceeded to examine whether the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner is proportionate or disproportionate in exercise of the discretion vested in him under Section 11-A of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ) and found that there were no mitigating circumstances to reduce the penalty imposed on the petitioner-delinquent. Accordingly he dismissed the I. D. without granting any relief to the petitioner. Hence this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution assailing the validity of the award.

( 5 ) SRI Sadu Rajeshwara Reedy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- delinquent would firstly contend that in recording the finding on the charge, both the enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court have lost sight of the fact that the charge is not satisfactorily proved by the mode known to law. Elaborating the contention, the learned Counsel would maintain that non-production of the medical certificate and non-examination of the Doctor in the departmental Enquiry is fatal to the enquiry. Alternatively, the learned Counsel would maintain that even assuming that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct alleged against him, even then the quantum of punishment imposed on him is totally disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by him.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned standing Counsel for the A. P. S. R. T. C. would maintain that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record and after due application of his mind and in exercise of his discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Act thought it fit not to grant any relief to the petitioner and there is absolutely no case made out for interference with the discretionary order made by the Labour court. The learned Standing Counsel would also maintain that simply because the doctor was not examined and the Medical certificate is not produced, that would not vitiate the finding, because the finding is supported by the oral evidence of three witnesses examined in the case.

( 7 ) IN the light of the rival contenti