The Tribunal must not modify disciplinary actions without considering the delay in seeking redress and the context of previous disciplinary proceedings, adhering to principles of natural justice.

ORDER:

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the Award in I.D.No. 85 of 2006, dated 06.09.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal.

2. Heard Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the petitioner, and Sri, P. Sridhar Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) That respondent No.2 was appointed as a temporary Cleaner w.e.f. 25.01.1980 and working under the control of the petitioner at the material time and he is bereft of clean record. The respondent No.2 while working in the night shift from 20.00 hours to 04.00 hours on 13.05.1988 was allotted the duty of sweeping of vehicles. But, after allotting the duties, he had swept only 15 vehicles and left the Garage without any permission and without any intimation to the shift Supervisors. Then, on duty Mechanics, who were maintaining the vehicles, informed the shift Supervisor that majority of vehicles were not swept. As such, another Cleaner was arranged by providing him double duty to avoid dislocation of services in the morning of 14.05.1988 and the same was endorsed in detail in S.D.Book.

(b) Later, the same was reported to the Depot Manager, Narsampet, on 13.05.1988. Based on the report and on the basis of other material evidence, the respondent No.2 was kept under suspension and a chargesheet was issued on 21.05.1988 with the following charges.

CHARGES:

1) For having absconded from the duties for 23.30 hours to 04.00 hours during the shift hours from 20.00 hours to 04.00 hours on 13.5.1988 without obtaining the permission of the shift supervisor, which is misconduct under Reg. 28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

2) For having failed to sweep the 15 vehicles bearing Nos. 5912, 4269, 32956, 7880, 2558, 4270, 7957, 8145, 9766, 2457, 2013, 1295, 6688 and 2322 while you were on duty on 13.5.1988, causing much inconvenience to the traveling public, which is misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

4. The respondent No.2 submitted his reply for the above charges. Not convincing with the reply, the petitioner ordered for domestic enquiry duly nominating Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Divisional Manager's Office, Warangal, as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice and C.C.A. Regulations. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer recorded his findings and transmitted the report to the petitioner with a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent No.2, were proved. Thereafter, the petitioner having gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed punishment against respondent No.2 through the proceedings dated 03.08.1988, with a penalty of deferment of annual increments be postponed for a period of two years which will have effect on his future increments.

5. The respondent No.2 after lapse of 16 years without availing internal remedies such as appeal and review, moved conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour as the same failed, the report was sent to Government by the conciliation authority, in turn, the Government referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication.

6. Even though the charges levelled against the respondent No.2 were proved, the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court in I.D.No. 85 of 2006, erroneously passed an Award by interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority against the respondent No.2, which is illeg