A High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions for findings of fact made by an Industrial Tribunal, provided the Tribunal's decision is based on record and is not vitiated by perversity.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation for the appellants;

Sri V.Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record.

2. This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5447 of 2018. By the said order, the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 16.10.2017 in I.D.No.42 of 2014. The Tribunal by the said award had upheld the removal of the respondent-workman from service and directed the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and all consequential notional benefits, but without backwages.

Factual matrix (in brief)

3. The respondent No.1 was initially engaged as a Contract Driver with the appellant-Corporation on 03.03.2008 at Barkatpura Depot and was subsequently appointed on regular time scale w.e.f., 01.09.2010. During the course of his employment, respondent No.1 was entrusted with duties not only as a driver but also as a conductor under the One-Man Service (OMS) system on Hi-Tech buses equipped with a Ticket Issuing Machine (TIM). The respondent No.1 did not have an unblemished service record, having earlier been censured in a Cash & Ticket (C&T) irregularity case dated 03.01.2012.

4. On 17.09.2013, respondent No.1 was operating a Hi-Tech bus on the route from Godavarikhani to Hyderabad under the One Man Service system. At the time when the vehicle reached Godavarikhani Bus Station (Stage No.1), the bus was subjected to a surprise check by the officials of the Regional Enforcement Squad, Nizamabad. During the course of such inspection, it was detected that two passengers, who had boarded the bus at Stage No.4 (Karimnagar) and travelling to Stage No.1 (Godavarikhani), were travelling without valid tickets.

5. Upon enquiry by the checking officials, the said passengers categorically stated that they had paid the requisite fare of Rs.128/- (Rs.64/- each) to respondent No.1, but respondent No.1 had failed to issue tickets to them. The appellant Corporation contended that the said act constituted a serious instance of cash and ticket irregularity, involving collection of fare without issuance of tickets, thereby indicating an intention to misappropriate the Corporation’s revenue.

6. During the course of the said inspection, the checking officials recorded contemporaneous statements of the passengers (Ex.M-2), wherein the passengers reiterated that they had paid the fare but were not issued tickets. The respondent No.1 also furnished a spot explanation (Ex.M-3), which was recorded at the time of the check, wherein respondent No.1 admitted that he had collected the fare from the said passengers but failed to issue tickets stating that the omission occurred as he forgot. The fare chart report (Ex.M-4) prepared by the checking officials reflected that the fare was collected (FC), and the TIM data revealed discrepancy between the number of passengers and tickets issued.

7. In view of the aforesaid irregularities, respondent No.1 was placed under suspension on 30.09.2013 and a chargesheet was issued framing the following charges:

i) Violation of the prescribed operational rule “issue, close and start” of the