N SRINIVASULU Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 24496 of 2006 whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court while setting aside the punishment of removal from service awarded by the Labour Court directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service with continuity of service, but without back wages and without any attendant benefits. The appellant while working as a conductor with the respondents-APSRTC was charge-sheeted and after conducting enquiry, he was removed from service. Questioning the same, the appellant preferred an appeal and thereafter review, which were ended in dismissal. Thereafter, the appellant raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court, which also ended in dismissal, confirming the punishment of removal from service imposed against him. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 24496 of 2006, which was disposed of through the order under appeal as stated supra. Being not satisfied with the relief granted in the aforesaid Writ Petition, he preferred the present Writ Appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that though the appellant was not responsible for the missing of the tickets, the respondents-APSRTC having recovered the value of the missing tickets from the officials, harassed his client by imposing punishment of removal from service alleging that the appellant had misappropriated the tickets fare. He submitted that the learned single Judge while granting reinstatement of his client in service ought to have awarded continuance of service and back wages considering that the punishment imposed against his client was harsh and not in consonance with the charges levelled against him. He therefore prayed that this appeal may be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC contended that inasmuch as all the authorities of the Corporation as well as the Labour Court found the appellant responsible for the alleged misconduct, however, the learned Single Judge though should not have interfered with such findings, however shown some lenience, which does not require to be extended furthermore. He submitted that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower authorities as well as the learned single judge and prayed that the Writ Appeal may be dismissed.