V.Vittal, Nizamabad vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Bodhan Depot, ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 103 Tel

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