1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad-II in I.D. No.103 of 1998 (Old I.D. No.228 of 1994), dated 08-06-1999, published on 03-09-1999.

2. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows :

The petitioner herein joined the service of A.P.S.R.T.C. as Conductor in Medchal Depot in 1966. He was promoted as Controller/Assistant Depot Clerk in 1977.

A Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and Departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer held that charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Then the 2nd respondent passed orders on 05-11-1992 removing the petitioner from service. On that he preferred an appeal and subsequently a review petition but was unsuccessful. Then he raised the industrial dispute, but was unsuccessful before the Tribunal as referred above. The petitioner and one B. Manohar, Conductors were charge sheeted in C.C. No.436 of 1992 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 30-06-1994 by the said Court. However, the first accused Manohar was found guilty and he was convicted.

3. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows :

1) For having collaborated with the conductor Sri B. Manohar, for theft the ticket block and SR’s.

2) For having failed to report the missing of 4 SR’s on 13-10-1991 while performing dispatch duty.

3) For having failed to report the missing of Six SR’s on 10-10-1991 and Ten SR’s on 11-10-1991 while performing duty as A.D.C.

4. It appears that the Charge sheet is dated 05-03-1992 before the matter was referred to the Enquiry Officer on 21-03-1992. It is clear that seven days time was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation from the date of receipt of the charge sheet. It is not clear when the said charge sheet was served on the petitioner. Then the petitioner submitted his explanation on 13-04-1992 and taken a specific stand that in the Charge sheet the particulars of ticket block number, key number, denomination number of blocks and date are not furnished. He further stated in his explanation that if the particulars of ticket blocks are furnished he can verify the records and relevant way bills to clarify whether they pertained to his duty. Thus, he made a specific request to furnish the particulars of the blocks and specific typed number of S.R. with regard to missing of S.Rs. His case is that he had maintained Dispatch Register while dispatching S.Rs., and mentioned the particulars of Conductor’s name, staff number, S.R. number supplied, 141 card, and impost, and if the copy of the Dispatch Register on 13-10-1991 is provided to him he can know missing S.Rs’ number supplied and requested to furnish a copy of the extracts of the Dispatch Register dated 13-10-1991, 10-10-1991 and 11-10-1991. The submission of explanation by the petitioner has been referred by the Enquiry Officer in his report and it is not in dispute. A perusal of entire record reveals that there is no material to show whether the petitioner had been supplied with the documents required by him. Admittedly, S.Rs’ numbers, ticket block numbers etc., are not mentioned in the Charges. The charges are simply say that “failed to report about the missing of 4 S.Rs. on 13-10-1991, 6 S.Rs. on 10-10-1991 and 10 S.Rs. on 11.10.1991.

5. Sri C. Sunil Kumar Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents, has referred to the enquiry report and submits that Xerox copy of the Dispatch Register folios dated 10-10-1991, 11-10-1991 and 13-10-1991 have been marked by the Enquiry Officer. There cannot be any doubt to say that those documents were before the Enquiry Officer.

6. The Enquiry Officer has examined witnesses and also referred to certain documents. There cannot be any doubt to say that B. Manohar, Conductor was arrested by the police. He was found in possession of 33 S.Rs. During the course of enquiry, statement of A.H