1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the Award dated 27.08.2008, passed in I.D.No.86 of 2007, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Warangal insofar it relates to denial of continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages to the petitioner, as being illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N.Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-TGSRTC.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on 01.12.1996, the petitioner was performing night-out service as driver on the bus on Gajwelly route; that when the bus reached Cherial, it was detained due to a brake jam; that subsequently, based on a news report published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily newspaper on 07.12.1996, a charge sheet dated 18.12.1996 was issued against the petitioner by framing the following charges:

               (i) “For having consumed country liquor while on duty on 01.12.1996, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xv) (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.”

               (ii) “For having detained the bus No.5462 at Cherial bus station on 01.12.1996 on the pretext of brake jam while you were performing 12.30 hours Gajjwelly night out duty, which resulted in cancellation of further operation of service and inconvenience to the traveling public, and loss of revenue to the corporation, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”

               (iii) “For having absconded from the bus No.5462 at Cherial bus station on 01.12.1996, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xvi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”

4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that without considering the petitioner’s explanation in proper perspective, the respondents ordered a departmental enquiry; that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to participate effectively in the enquiry; that the Enquiry Officer failed to record the questions posed by the petitioner to the witness examined on behalf of the respondent-Corporation during cross-examination and proceeded as though no cross-examination was done; that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a biased manner and on mere assumptions and presumptions, without there being any legally admissible evidence to substantiate the charges, he recorded findings holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him.

               4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that although a show-cause notice dated 20.04.1997 proposing the punishment of removal from service was issued, the same was never served on the petitioner, despite the same, respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 30.09.1997 removing the petitioner from service, thereby depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to submit his representation against the proposed punishment.

               4.2. He further submitted that the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected mechanically, without considering the grounds raised therein and therefore, the appellate order confirming the order of removal, is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.

               4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the statement of the petitioner, while giving credence to the statement of the mechanic; that the Tribunal has committed error of law in not giving any finding with regard to validity of domestic enquiry and disposed of the ID in a mechanical manner and therefore, the impugned Award is liable to be set aside and finally, prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Corporation, by referring to the Counter, submitted that petitioner was appointed as Casual driver on daily wage basis on 23.04.1981 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 22.07.1989; that earlier, several punishments were inflicted on him, for misconduct during his employment, i.e., he was warned once, censured twice, pay was reduced twice, suspended once and removed once.

               5.1. He further submitted that the Chief Inspector of Jangaon depot met the police authorities on 02.12.1996 and the vehicle was brought to the depot with the help of other driver, as the petitioner was not in a position to drive the bus as he was in inebriated condition; that a charge sheet was served on the petitioner, to which he submitted his explanation; that having not been satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, disciplinary authority ordered domestic enquiry to be conducted by nominating the Chief Inspector, Warangal as an Enquiry Officer.

               5.2. Learned standing counsel further submitted that during enquiry, the petitioner did not cross-examine the two mechanics who stated that there was no mechanical defects in the bus and the statement of the petitioner was recorded in his defence; that after completion of enquiry, the Enquiry officer recorded his findings and transmitted the file to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded by Enquiry officer and issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.04.1997, who acknowledged the same on 02.05.1997, but failed to submit his explanation. Consequently, the petitioner was removed from service on 30.09.1997 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 30.01.1998; and that the petitioner has not preferred any Review. He finally submitted that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

6. Perusal of impugned Award discloses that the Tribunal has observed that during his service, petitioner was censured for his unauthorized absence in the year 1984, placed under suspension, warned in the year 1986 for desertion of duties, his annual increment was deferred several times, he was removed from service in the year 1992 and again censured for unauthorized absence in the year 1995 prior to the removal in this case and all these clearly show that the petitioner was habitual in desertion of duties.

7. The principal contention of the petitioner is that while operating the night-out service on the alleged date, he noticed smoke emanating from the left-side brake drum of the bus, hence, he stopped the vehicle at Cherial Bus Station. According to him, he deputed the conductor to bring a mechanic and remained near the bus until about 5:30 a.m. He further stated that as he was suffering from severe stomach pain, he thereafter proceeded to the Government Hospital for treatment. The petitioner has consistently denied the allegation that he had consumed liquor while on duty or that he had absconded from the bus and that he had visited the police station on the following day.

8. A perusal of the material placed on record, however, discloses that the domestic enquiry was conducted by duly affording an opportunity to the petitioner to participate. The Enquiry Officer examined the witnesses, including the mechanics who inspected the vehicle and the said mechanics categorically stated that there was no brake jam and that the wheels of the bus moved freely. The petitioner did not effectively discredit the testimony of the said witnesses. Based on the evidence adduced during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded findings holding the charges as proved against the petitioner.

9. The Tribunal, while exercising its jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, independently examined the entire material on record. It has noticed that the petitioner’s past service record was far from satisfactory. The petitioner had been subjected to several punishments earlier for acts of unauthorized absence, desertion of duties, and other instances of misconduct. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the petitioner intentionally detained the vehicle on 01.12.1996 and thereafter absconded from the bus, thereby causing inconvenience to the travelling public and financial loss to the Corporation. These findings are based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or unsupported by the record.

10. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded in a domestic enquiry or by the Tribunal/Industrial Tribunal. Interference is warranted only where the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or where the enquiry suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Merely because another view is possible, this Court would not substitute its own conclusions for those arrived at by the disciplinary authority or the Tribunal.

11. The contention of the petitioner that the second show-cause notice proposing the punishment was not served on him also does not merit acceptance. The respondent-Corporation has specifically contended that the show-cause notice dated 28.04.1997 was duly served on the petitioner, who acknowledged its receipt on 02.05.1997 but he failed to submit any explanation. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, did not record any finding that there was violation of the principles of natural justice on this aspect. In the absence of any convincing material to dislodge the factual finding, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award on that ground.

12. In the present case, the Tribunal has already exercised its discretion by holding that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the proved misconduct and ordered for reinstatement of petitioner as Driver afresh in the prevailing scale of pay. At the same time, having regard to the gravity of the misconduct, the petitioner’s adverse past service record, and the delay in raising the industrial dispute, the Tribunal rightly denied continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits and this Court does not find any illegality and irregularity or perversity in the impugned Award.

13. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court the impugned Award of the Tribunal strikes a balance between the interests of the employee and the Corporation. The Tribunal has already shown sufficient lenience by directing reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver afresh, despite proved misconduct. The denial of continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits is supported by valid reasons and does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.