ORDER

Heard Mr V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and heard the learned standing counsel Mr B.Mayur Reddy, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quash the impugned award dated 15.09.2016 passed in I.D.No.43 of 2013, published on 10.05.2017 for not granting any relief as well as the order passed on 08.02.2016 holding the domestic enquiry conducted as valid on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

PERUSED THE RECORD.

3. The relevant portion of the impugned award dated 15 th September, 2016 passed in I.D.No.43 of 2013 on the file of Labour Court-III, A.P., Hyderabad (last three paras of the said Award), read as under:

“In the domestic enquiry the petitioner has not submitted any document in support of his claim. As the initial burden on the respondents to prove the case in the domestic enquiry was successfully discharged, hence the burden is on the petitioner to prove that the certificate produced by him is a genuine one. It is to be noted that the petitioner neither produced Transfer Certificate from his High School nor produced any date of birth certificate and SSC Memo in support of his contention. The case on hand, the petitioner has not filed any document. To rebut the evidence of the respondents, respondents filed the proceedings issued by the Addl. Joint Secretary to the Director of Government Exams, A.P, Hyderabad, which was marked by consent of both the parties. Therefore the burden is on the petitioner to show that verification particulars issued by the Addl. Joint Secretary to the Director of Government Exams, A.P, Hyderabad is not correct. But the petitioner has not filed any document in support of his contentions and he admitted about malpractice and this Court held the domestic enquiry is valid.

In view of the above discussions, the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the verification of his SSC Marks certificate is not properly done and it is not correct. On the other hand, respondents proved that on verification of the SSC Marks Certificate by the Addl.

Joint Secretary to the Director of Government Exams, A.P, Hyderabad, categorically held that the Xerox copy of the memorandum of marks certificate submitted by the petitioner is not tallying with the particulars mentioned in the office record. The enquiry officer relied on the verification certificate issued by Addl. Joint Secretary to the Director of Government Exams, A.P., Hyderabad and admission of petitioner before the enquiry officer that Ex.M6 is not genuine, held that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Petitioner has not filed any rebuttal evidence to disprove the document. Hence there is no need to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer.

Whether the punishment imposed by the respondents is proportionate one or not? It is to be noted that as per the case of the respondents the petitioner cheated the APSRTC by producing fake SSC Marks certificate. Petitioner not only cheated the APSRTC, he has also grabbed the opportunity of the genuine competitor who seeks employment. Hence the punishment imposed by the respondent against the petitioner is proportionate one.”

4. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in particular, paras 3 to 7 read as under:

“3. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the post of Conductor on contract basis and subsequently the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.12.2011 at Gadwal Depot.

Subsequently, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings No.P.2/101(3)/2013-GDL, dated 19.10.2013 following due