APHC01038823200 Bench Sr.No:-46

6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506]

AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14492 of 2006 The Depot Manager, Guntur ...Petitioner Vs.

The President Another and Others ...Respondent(s)

**********

Advocate for Petitioner: R MANMADHA REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR LABOUR, A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 18th February 2026

ORDER:

Present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief:

“to issue an appropriate writ order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award dt.14.09.2005 made in I.D. No.205 of 2001 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur and quash the same as being illegal and invalid and pass such other orders.”

2. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel, representing for petitioner and Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for 1^st respondent.

3. (a) The 2^nd respondent at relevant point of time was working as Conductor with the petitioner Corporation. While he was charged with allegations that a) collected excess bus fare from 11 passengers i.e., ₹100/- as against ₹99/- for commuting from Vinukonda to Hyderabad in Semi Luxury Bus, b) collected ₹10/- from two passengers as reservation charges otherwise not in the charge list, c) allowed luggage into gang way even before alighting at platform causing inconvenience to the passengers, enquiry report came to be drawn and eventually order of punishment came to be passed on 15.01.1997.

(b) By virtue of the said order, punishment of deferment of annual increments for two years with cumulative effect was ordered. 1^st respondent thereafter raised a dispute before the Government and eventually, the same came to be referred by Government to the Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) of I.D.Act. The Tribunal after having considered the evidence on record ultimately answered the reference partly in favour of the

1^st respondent. The order of punishment has been set aside and the increments were directed to be restored to the 1^st respondent from the date of reference i.e., 04.07.2001.

(c) Further, it was made clear that 1^st respondent shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit from the date of punishment order till the date of reference i.e., 04.07.2001.

(d) Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the assertions made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, contended that the order of Tribunal suffers from serious infirmity inasmuch as though the 1^st respondent had admitted to one of the charges, in particular that of allowing luggage into the gang way, the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment in toto. The conclusion drawn by Tribunal that the punishment imposed was without conducting any domestic enquiry is perverse inasmuch as there was inquiry report under Ex.M7 on record, which suggested there was proper inquiry before issuance of charge sheet culminating into order of punishment.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent tried to support the impugned order passed by Tribunal by contending that the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of evidence, has rendered specific findings to come to conclusion that the very order of punishment did not precede with proper domestic enquiry which goes to route of the matter and therefore, even if it is suggested that one of the charges is admitted too, the same ipso facto would not validate the enquiry which otherwise had fundamental flaw of violation of the principles of natural justice besides being contrary to the applicable rules and regulations of the Corporation.

6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions.

7. It is not in dispute that the 1^st respondent was subjected to disciplinary inquiry against three charges. For all these three charges, the delinquent has submitted explanation in justification. The record