Telangana High Court
V.Vittal, Nizamabad vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Bodhan Depot, ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.4031 of 2008
DATED: 26th MARCH, 2026
Between:
V.Vittal ...Petitioner
AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Bodhan, Nizamabad
District
...Respondent
O R D E R:
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court, wherein, the Labour Court denied the reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including back wages, vide impugned order, dated 28.03.2005.
02. Heard Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiva Naik, learned counsel appearing for Sri N.Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and perused the record.
03. The petitioner was regularized as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1980. For having collected an amount of Rs.29 each in total Rs.87 from a batch of (3) passengers at their boarding place i.e. Warangal stage No.37 towards their journey from Warangal to Karimnagar ex- stages 37 to 29 and failed to issue tickets to them upto the point of check i.e. stage No.31, Keshavapatnam and for having closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations against stage No.31, without completing the ticket issues. For which, he was removed from service on 05.03.2002 on the ground of alleged cash and ticket irregularities. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. Upon consideration of the matter, the Labour Court dismissed the industrial dispute. Aggrieved by the said Award dismissing the industrial dispute, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not afford reasonable opportunity to him and recorded the statements in a manner contrary to the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charges, with a view to defeat his defence. Based on the perverse findings recorded in the inquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the Industrial Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the petitioner had issued 57 tickets to 57 passengers at Warangal, which included the three passengers in question, and that the Tribunal committed an error in not properly appreciating the said fact. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the documents produced by the respondents without the same being marked as exhibits in accordance with law, while upholding the order of removal. It is further contended that the Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, dismissed the industrial dispute. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned Award and direct reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits, including back wages.
05. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation contends that, upon appreciation of the entire material available on record, the Tribunal rightly found that the petitioner had admitted his guilt at the spot and subsequently changed his version at later stages. It is further contended that the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the checking official to the effect that the three passengers in question were travelling from Stage No.37 to Stage No.29 and that the petitioner had collected Rs.87/- from them without issuing tickets. The said evidence remained unshaken. The Tribunal also observed that the SR clearly shows that the petitioner had closed all the ticket tray numbers of various denominations against Stage No.31, and the petitioner had admitted the same during the course of the enquiry. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the industrial dispute.
06. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-RTC, and upon perusal of the material available on record, finds that the petitioner himself attested the passengers' statements, which disclose that he had collected the requisite fare from them but failed to issue tickets. It is also evident that the petitioner admitted his guilt in the spot explanation. It is to be noted that the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an award passed by the Labour Court is limited. This Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence or to substitute its own conclusions for those arrived at by the Tribunal, unless the findings are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or unsupported by any material on record.
07. In the present case, the Labour Court, upon a detailed consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner had collected fare from three passengers without issuing tickets. The evidence of the checking official was found to be reliable and remained unshaken during cross-examination. The relevant entries in the SR were also taken into consideration during the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court, after independently assessing the fairness of the enquiry and the sufficiency of the evidence, upheld the order of removal imposed by the disciplinary authority.
08. The contention of the petitioner that the domestic enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice has not been substantiated by placing any convincing material before this Court. There is nothing on record to demonstrate denial of reasonable opportunity or any procedural illegality. In the absence of such infirmity, the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The charges stand proved on the basis of acceptable evidence, the enquiry was held to be fair, and the Labour Court has assigned cogent and valid reasons while upholding the order of removal. No perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error is made out warranting interference by this Court.
09. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 26.03.2026 Ksk/khrm