RASHEED Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. No. 16867 of 2006 filed this writ appeal. The appellant joined the service of A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1981. In the year 2002, he was working in the Sangareddy Depot of the Corporation, 2nd respondent herein. On 16.04.2002, he was operating a service from Patancheru to Ordinance Factory. A check was conducted en route. The 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet to the appellant, alleging that he had issued used tickets to 4 or 5 passengers. The charges in relation thereto were framed. The appellant submitted his explanation denying the charges. According to him, he issued the correct tickets but some of the passengers may have shown the tickets that were purchased by them in the earlier trips. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 2nd respondent ordered domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer held the charges as proved. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed the order, dated 06.11.2002 imposing the punishment of removal from service.

(2.) THE appellant filed I.D. No. 86 of 2003 before the Labour Court -II, Hyderabad. Through its award, dated 27.12.2005, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Thereupon, the appellant filed W.P. No. 16876 of 2006. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order, dated 19.03.2014. Hence, this writ appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the charges framed against the appellant are very grave in nature and once they were held proved, the inescapable conclusion is that the punishment of removal must be imposed. He further submits that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have dealt with every aspect in detail and did not find any basis to interfere with the order of removal. He contends that no interference is warranted with the concurrent findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge.