THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ or order, direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned award dated 22.03.2016 in I.D. No. 17 of 2012, published on 17.08.2016 on the file fo the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in so far as deferring (2) increments with cumulative effect and not giving attendant benefits and back wages as arbitrary in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the deferred increment along with all consequents benefits…”

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in the respondent Corporation on 04.12.1986, and his services were regularized w.e.f., 01.08.1988. While working as such, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 11.05.2007, alleging misconduct against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet, but having been dissatisfied with the same, the respondent Corporation conducted an enquiry against him. Subsequently, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 03.09.2007, holding the charges against the petitioner as proved. Thereafter, the authorities issued yet another charge sheet dated 14.09.2007, without finalizing the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f., 06.10.2007.

2.2. Thereafter, another enquiry was conducted in respect of the second charge sheet dated 14.09.2007, and the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 10.11.2009, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.11.2009. The petitioner was then issued with a show-cause notice of removal from service vide proceedings dated 02.12.2009, for which, he submitted his explanation on 16.12.2009. Consequently, the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 21.12.2009. Assailing the same, he preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nalgonda, which was dismissed vide order dated

03.05.2011.

2.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Labor Court-III, Hyderabad, and filed I.D.No.17 of 2012. The Labour Court allowed the said I.D. vide award dated 22.03.2016, setting aside the removal order dated 21.12.2009, by directing the respondent to reinstate him into service, duly treating the period of suspension as on- duty for all purposes, without any backwages and attendant benefits. The Labour Court also modified the punishment to that of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the modified punishment and denial of backwages and attendant benefits, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court erred in upholding the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in respect of the charge sheet dated 14.09.2007, as no witnesses were examined during the enquiry. As such, the Labour Court ought to have held not only charge No.4 but all the charges against the petitioner as not proved. It was further submitted that the Labour Court, having held that the petitioner was entitled for continuity of service, erred in modifying the punishment to that of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect and also in denying the backwages and attendant benefits. It was further contended that the Labour Court, having held that the petitioner should be treated on par with one Mr. Omkaram, Driver, who was suspended along with the petitioner on the same charges, whereafter, his suspension was revoked and he was continued in service, ought to have direct