The High Court's role under Article 226 is not to re-evaluate evidence but to ensure that disciplinary proceedings comply with established legal standards and natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following prayer :

"......to issue writ order or direction of the writ of more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari after calling for the records in ID No.71/2006, dated 15.09.2008 on the file of the Hon'ble Labour Court, Guntur, in confirming the removal order passed by the disciplinary authority as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently set aside same and direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits and pass...."

2. In the instant writ petition, the Award dated 15.09.2008 made in ID No.71 of 2006 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur, is called into question. Consequently, the writ petitioner also seeks reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits.

Brief case of the petitioner :

3. The petitioner had joined in service as a Conductor on 01.08.1997 in the respondent-Corporation at Tadepalligudem. While so, on 02.09.2005 during the course of his employment when he was discharging his duties on the Bus Bearing No.AP 9 Z 5281, which was proceeding from Bheemavaram to Tadepalligudem at 3:30 p.m., near Chilakampadu last stage, the respondent authorities i.e., TTIs, conducted a surprise check. On the said check, they found gross irregularities by the petitioner in not issuing the tickets to the passenger, even after collecting the requisite amount also. Thus, the following Charges were made against the petitioner :

(1) For having violated the Rule "Issue & Start" while you were performing BVRM-T-P-G Service on 02.09.2005 which constitutes serious misconduct vide Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

(2) For having failed to issue ticket to a passenger, who boarded the bus at Bheemavaram and bound for T.P. Gudem ex-stages 8 to 1, even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.13/- while you were performing the service Bhimavaram-T.P. Gudem on 02.09.2003 which constitutes serious misconduct vide Regulation 8(x), (vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.

(3) For having closed the ticket Nos. of all denominations upto the Stage No.3 without completing the ticket issues, which constitutes misconduct vide Regulation 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963".

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has submitted an explanation to the said charges, but the Enquiry Officer without perceiving the same, held the petitioner guilty. Based upon the enquiry report, the petitioner was terminated from the service vide orders dated 31.12.2005. The said removal orders were challenged by the petitioner, but the Appellate Authority as well as reviewing authority rejected the same respectively, vide it's orders dated 10.02.2006 and 29.04.2006. Thus, the removal orders were confirmed concurrently.

5. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent Labour Court, Guntur, by invoking the provisions under Section 2 -A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, through ID No.71 of 2006, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2008 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition, invoking the powers vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Brief case of the respondent-Corporation :

6. The counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent-Corporation denying the