The findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and not based on evidence. The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence and mechanically upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The charges against the workman were not proved.

( 1 ) THE Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ananthapur in I. D. No. 113/89, dated 12-12-1990 is assailed by the Workman.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the Award are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clearner in A. P. S. R. T. C. in 1981. While so, on the intervening night of 22-4-1988 he is alleged to have committed some misconducts, thereupon a charge-sheet was issued and after the enquiry was conducted, he was meted out with the punishment by orders dated 31-8-1988 and after availing the appeal remedy unsuccessfully the petitioner filed an application under section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 1st respondent- industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, challenging the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submits that the charges as framed against him are not inconsonance with the provisions of A. P. S. R. T. C. Employees Regulations. Further, there is no sufficient evidence to establish the charges framed against the petitioner. He further assessed the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse and in some cases, the finding is not based on any evidence. Finally, he also submits that even assuming that the charges have been proved, the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the Industrial Tribunal has not considered these issues in proper perspective and proceeded mechanically in tune with the Enquiry officer s finding. Even, without considering the gravity of the charges, visa-vis punishment, the Tribunal held that the punishment is proper and thus refused to grant any relief to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that Industrial Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction vested under Section 11 of Industrial Disputes Act.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Corporation Sri I. Aga reddy submits that the 1st respondent tribunal found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and the findings thereof recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be interfered with by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) THIRDLY, the punishment meted out to the petitioner under the circumstances keeping in view the charges framed against the petitioner is quite appropriate and the same cannot be modified or set aside. The tribunal having exercised the power under Section 11 (a) (sic. 11-A) of the act confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent and this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and modify the punishment. Thus, the learned Counsel submits that the Award is quite valid and the same is unassailable.

( 5 ) I have considedred the respective contentions of both the sides. Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to extract the charges framed against the petitioner: charge No. 1: For having deserted the work alloted by the on duty leading Hand to assist Sri B. Purushotham, E. 26695, Mechanic in your shift duty from 20-00 hours to 4-30 hours on 22/23-4-1988 and slept in the vehicle AEZ 2341 and when the Leading Hand made to wake up to work again you slept in another vehicle AEZ 1219 respectively, causing dislocation of work in the maintenance of vehicles, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxviii) of APSRTC, employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. " charge No. 2: For having misbehaved with the on duty L. H. when asked to give in writing about your sleeping with drunken condition, you have refused to give, while you were attending the shift duty from 20-00 hours to 4-30 hours on 22/23-4-1988, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (viii) of APSRTC, Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963". Charge No. 3: For having attended the garage in drunken state by influence of liquor to your shift duty from 20-00 to 4-30 hours on 22/23-4-1988, which was witnessed by the on-duty Security Guards which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28