THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

Assailing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Godavarikhani, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’) dated 16.12.2002 in I.D.No.72 of 2002, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a daily-wage Driver in the respondent Corporation on 22.01.1983, and was later appointed as Driver on contract basis w.e.f., 01.03.1983. Thereafter, his services were regularized w.e.f., 01.10.1983. While so, he was placed under suspension and got issued with the charge sheet dated 10.04.2000, on the ground that he had unauthorizedly detailed the bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 9585 on 30.03.2000, which caused inconvenience to the traveling public, and that he was found in an intoxicated condition. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not turn up to duty until 05.04.2000, after the said incident. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet, denying the charges. However, having been dissatisfied with his explanation, the respondent authorities ordered for an enquiry against the petitioner. Consequent upon the enquiry, the enquiry officer held the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved. As such, basing on the said report, the petitioner was terminated from service vide proceedings dated 17.11.2001. Assailing the same, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and filed I.D.No.72 of 2002, which was dismissed vide impugned award dated 16.12.2002 that was published on 31.12.2002 vide G.O.Rt.No.3643.

Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Gajanand Chakaravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri U. Shanti Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his explanation, stating that he was unwell with fever and nausea, and was unable to drive the bus properly. Therefore, he stopped the bus and went to a nearby dispensary, got treatment, and later, went to the Government Hospital, Bhainsa. As such, the petitioner could not report to duty until 05.04.2000. However, without considering the said explanation, an enquiry was conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that during the enquiry, the statements of two conductors, i.e., Mr. K. Kishore and Mr. P. Kishan, were recorded, and both of them deposed that the petitioner was unable to control the bus. In fact, Mr. P. Kishan deposed that he was busy issuing the tickets and thus, could not observe the petitioner. As such, the statements of both the conductors did not support the charge of the petitioner being in a drunken condition.

5. Learned counsel contends that the enquiry officer arrived at a perverse conclusion that the charge against the petitioner was held proved, relying on the statements of TI-II and some of the passengers, which were alleged to have been submitted by TI-II. However, none of the passengers were ever examined as witnesses during the enquiry proceedings, which is contrary to Regulation 12 of the APSRTC Discipline and Appeal Regulations. It is further contended that none of the documents, which were relied upon by the enquiry officer, including the alleged statements of TI-II and passengers, were ever furnished to the petitioner, causing him severe prejudice in the matter. It is also contended that the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity of cross-examining the respondent witnesses. However, without considering any of these aspects, the Labour Court grossly erred in upholding the domestic enquiry as valid, and had suo motu marked all the documents without the consent of the petitioner and his learned counsel, and treated the same as evidence on record, which is clearly unjustifiable and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the p