HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 107 OF 2006 20-10-2014 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Armoor, Nizamabad District …Appellant And T. Narayana and another …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 107 OF 2006
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The 1st respondent (for short, ‘the respondent’) is a driver in the appellant – depot. On 09-08-1985, he was operating a bus bearing No. APZ- 9346 to a place by name Kaligote. It is said to have failed. In relation to that, the appellant issued a charge sheet alleging that the respondent intentionally failed the bus and thereafter, absconded from 22.40 hours. The explanation offered by the respondent was found not satisfactory. Departmental enquiry was conducted and through order dated 17-01-1986, the appellant removed the respondent from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the respondent filed I.D No. 105 of 1992 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Labour Court’). In its award dated 30-03-1993, the Labour Court held that the charges framed against the respondent were not proved. The order of removal was set aside and direction was issued to reinstate him into service without break in service. However, back wages were denied. Dissatisfied with the relief granted by the Labour Court, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 33430 of 1998. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed payment of back wages. The same is challenged in this writ appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The charges framed by the respondent are extracted by the learned single Judge in his order in the writ petition. A perusal of the same discloses that the respondent was alleged to have caused failure of the bus. Except making a vague and general allegation, it was not even indicated as to what acts or omissions of the respondent have contributed to the failure of the bus. The Labour Court examined the matter in detail and found that the charges are not proved. The appellant did not challenge the findings of the Labour Court.
Once the charges framed against an employee are held not proved, he must be restored to a position in which he would have been, but for the order of punishment. That is what the learned single Judge did. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order in the writ petition.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 20-10-2014 ks