The petitioner was employed as a conductor in APSRTC in the year 1990. He was working in the Jeedimetla Depot in the year 1998. On 12.10.1998,, while he was conducting the service between Patancheru and Jeedimetla on route No.223J/A, a check was conducted at stage No.16. Two allegations were made against the petitioner, viz.,a)that one passenger, who boarded at stage No.18 and scheduled to travel up to stage No.16 paid fare of Rs.2.25 ps., but the petitioner did not issue ticket, and b) that four passengers boarded at stage No.17 for travelling up to stage No.15 and though they paid fare of Rs.9.00 (Rs.2.25 ps. each), the petitioner did not issue tickets.

2. A charge sheet was issued on 16.10.1998. Petitioner submitted explanation stating that the passenger, who is referred to in charge No.1, did not pay the fare and on the other hand, he claimed that he holds a bus pass. He stated that when the discussion as to production of the pass was going on, the bus reached stage No.17, where four passengers boarded and paid fare. According to him, when he was about to issue tickets for the four passengers mentioned in charge No.2, the passenger mentioned in charge No.1 was trying to get down. He said to have rushed to him to prevent him from alighting the bus and that the check took place almost simultaneously. The explanation was not accepted by the 1st respondent. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. In the course of enquiry, the petitioner made his statement, apart from producing one of the four passengers mentioned in charge No.2.

3. In his report, dated 18.11.1998, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved.

4. Taking the same into account, the 1st respondent passed order, dated 02.01.1999, directing removal of the petitioner from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, petitioner filed I.D.No.114 of 2000 in the Labour Court – I. That was transferred to the Industrial Tribunal - II, Hyderabad, and renumbered as I.D.No.78 of 2002. Through Award, dated 21.03.2003, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Hence, this writ petition.

5. The petitioner contends that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and contrary to evidence, and that the Labour Court did not make any endeavour to analyze the defects therein.

6. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the charges framed against the petitioner are serious in nature and the order of removal or the Award in the I.D. do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

7. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the checking staff threatened the petitioner as well as the passengers and prepared a fabricated report.

8. He contends that the bus travelled just half a kilometer from stage No.17, where the four passengers have boarded; and even while the petitioner was about to issue tickets, the passenger, who boarded at stage No.18 and claimed to have bus pass, was about to alight, without producing the pass. According to him, the petitioner rushed towards the said passenger and the check took place instantly. He submits that this is one of the rare cases where the passenger, mentioned in the charge sheet, was examined by the delinquent employee and though nothing was elicited from the witness in the cross-examination, it was totally ignored by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority and the Labour Court.

9. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the explanation offered by the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice, is different from the one that was offered when the check took place. He submits that though one of the passengers was examined, the record speaks for itself as to the misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent and the Labour Court have considered the matter objectively and the orders passed by them do not call for any interference.

10. The petitioner was conductor o