The court upheld that procedural irregularities in domestic enquiries do not invalidate findings if substantiated by evidence, reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review against disciplinary actions.

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 51/2000, dated 03.02.2001 confirming the orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 21.08.1989.

2. Heard Sri. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC appearing for the respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in APSRTC on 08.03.1986. On 14.12.1987, while the petitioner was conducting service on vehicle No. 7920 in Route No 189 M, at stage No. 2 (Shapurnagar) at about 8.50 A.M., the checking officials exercised their check and found some irregularities on part of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his spot explanation to the checking officials. The checking officials exercised another check at 13.40 hours on the same day and issued Charge Memo No. 75798/97 alleging certain irregularities for which the Petitioner submitted his spot explanation to the checking officials. Thereafter, a Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.12.1987.

(b) Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 19.12.1987. Thereafter, a Chargesheet dated 19.12.1987 was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the Chargesheet on 06.01.1988. Thereafter, the 1st respondent decided to hold a domestic enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer vide findings dated 17.03.1998 held the petitioner was guilty of charges. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer on 24.05.1988, for which the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 13.06.1988, the 1^st respondent without giving the opportunity of personal hearing issued the removal order on 04.11.1988 to the petitioner.

(c) Against the said order, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 9578 of 1988 and this Court vide this Order dated 16.01.1989 set aside the removal order on the ground that the enquiry was vitiated as given the petitioner had no opportunity was given to put forth his case during the enquiry. Again, an enquiry was conducted pursuant to the orders of this Court. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry contrary to the rules and procedure and reported by Order dated 07.07.1989 that the charges were proved.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are improper, as they are not based on relevant record and the evidence is not at all properly appreciated.

(d) Thereafter, the respondent on 02.08.1989 issued a Show-Cause Notice. The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the Show-Cause Notice. However, in a routine and mechanical manner and without appreciating the explanation, the 1st respondent passed orders in Proceedings No. 02/104(95) 187 JMC, dated 21.08.1989 removing the petitioner from service. The order of removal passed by the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the CCA regulations and also based on invalid evidence and does not stand to legal scrutiny.

(e) Aggrieved by the orders of removal passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner raised 1.D. No. 51/2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad under section 2-A (2) of I.D. Act. The Respondent No.1 herein filed its counter and contested the matter. The 2nd Respondent-Industrial Tribunal passed its Award on 03.02