2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 870
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31918 OF 2016 Between:
1. R.S.Manyam, S/o.Rajagopalachary, Occ: Conductor, R/o.M.Nasampalle Village, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur, Rep. by its Chairman cum Presiding Officer.
2. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kuppam Depot, Kuppam, Chittoor District.
3. The Deputy Chief Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): KALE VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR (AP)
The Court made the following: ORDER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 31918 of 2016
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:
“…to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari after calling for the records relating to the Award in I.D. No.64 of 2013, dt.31.08.2015 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in to service with continuity of service and back wages in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case”.
2. Aggrieved by the Order dated 31.08.2015 confirming the removal order passed by the respondents herein, by the Industrial Disputes Court in I.D. No.64 of 2013 dated, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as conductor in the year 2009 by the respondent corporation and he is discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction to the authorities, but on 23.10.2012, while the petitioner conducting duties as conductor in the route Kuppam to Tirupatur a check was exercised at Narayanacheruvu near Natrampalli by Civil Supplies Authorities, Chennai and it was found E-28 bags of PDS rice each 50 kg, for which the Civil Supplies Authorities, Tamilnadu, have ceased the vehicle and the same was intimated to the Depot Manager. Basing upon the seizure of the vehicle by the Civil Supplies Police, Tamilnadu, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner herein with the following charges:
a. “For having allowed public distribution scheme rice E28 bags of each 50 Kgs in your service vehicle from Tirupatur to Kuppam on 23.10.2012 while performing duty on the route Kuppam to Tirupatur with Veh.No.AP28Z 0084 and the vehicle was seized by civil supplies authorities Vellore at Narayanachervu near Natrapalli which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (iv) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.
b. For having allowed E28 bags of each 550 KGs public distribution scheme rice as unaccompanied luggage from Tirupatur to Kuppam on 23.10.2012 which shows your gross negligence while performing duty and constitutes a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees conduct Reg.1963.
c. For having been arrested by Civil Supplies department and sent for remand up to 07.11.2012 for illegal transportation of public Distribution scheme rice involving moral turpitude which is punishable under the provision of Indian Penal Code which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (iv) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.
d. For having caused loss of earnings to the vehicle seized by Civil supplies department, Chennai from 23.10.2012 to 01.11.2012 to a tune of Rs.70,000.00 and imposed penalty by civil supplies authorities, Vellore of Rs.53,200-00 due to your fraud and misappropriation with the property of the corporation and constitutes a misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.
1963.
e. For having failed to inform the vehicle seize matter to Depot Manager and Depot supervisors on 23.10.2012 which was seized by Civil Supplies Police, Tamilnadu which shows your gross negligence and violated the instructions of the Corporation which and constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (x) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.”
4. After conducting enquiry by the respondent corporation as per A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, the petitioner has been removed from service on 16.02.2013. Against the said disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same came to be rejected on 25.03.2013.
5. Aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner herein filed I.D. before the Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu. The Industrial Tribunal has framed a charge, which is extracted hereunder:
“Whether there exists any infirmity in Ex.M-2 proc