Telangana High Court
K.V. Chary, Nalgonda Dist vs The Depot Manager, Nalgonda Dist on 27 July, 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.24553 of 2007
DATED: 27TH JULY, 2026
BETWEEN:
K.V.Chary ...Petitioner
AND
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Kodad, Nalgonda Dist.
...Respondent
O R D E R:
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the
Award dated 06.01.2004 passed by the Labour Court, whereby the
Labour Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service subject to
the deferment of two (2) annual grade increments with cumulative
effect. The Labour Court further held that the petitioner shall not be
entitled to any back wages or attendance benefits.
02. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri G.Niraj Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri
Chandra Sekhar N, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State
Road Transport Corporation and perused the record.
2
03.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
impugned award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the
evidence available on record, the probabilities of the case and the
settled principles governing adjudication under the Industrial Disputes
Act, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the
Labour Court failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence
and erroneously upheld the findings of the domestic enquiry without
independently examining the correctness of the charges.
03.2. Learned counsel further submitted that, insofar as Charge
No.I relating to short remittance is concerned, the verification report
dated 27.01.2000 submitted by the Assistant Manager (Finance),
Kodad Depot, specifically records that the concerned Conductor, Ch.
R.K. Rao, E.No.290070, had remitted only a sum of Rs.5,700/- instead
of Rs.5,800/-. According to the learned counsel, the said report itself
establishes that the actual short remittance was committed by the
Conductor and not by the petitioner. At the highest, the allegation
against the petitioner was that he failed to notice the short remittance
while verifying the way bills, due to which the computer system did not
reflect the deficit amount. It is contended that whenever any short
remittance is subsequently detected, the Corporation is empowered to
recover the amount from the salary of the concerned Conductor and
3
initiate appropriate disciplinary action against such employee.
Therefore, fastening the entire liability upon the petitioner and treating
the same as a grave misconduct warranting removal from service is
wholly arbitrary and disproportionate.
03.3. It is further contended that the findings recorded with
regard to the delayed remittance of Rs.44/- and Rs.48/- are equally
unsustainable. Learned counsel submits that the delay occurred solely
because the said amounts were payable by Driver Sri Suraiah,
E.No.256069, and Conductor Sri Ghouse, E.No.175087, from whom
the petitioner was required to collect the amounts. The petitioner
waited for nearly six days expecting the said employees to remit the
amounts, but since they failed to do so, he himself remitted the said
amounts into the Corporation account. In such circumstances, the
delay was occasioned by reasons beyond the petitioner’s control and
cannot be attributed as misconduct. It is further argued that the
respondent Corporation failed to produce any circular, regulation or
service instruction mandating that an Assistant Depot Clerk should
immediately remit such unpaid amounts from his own pocket. In the
absence of any such prescribed procedure, the charge itself is vague
and incapable of sustaining disciplinary action.
4
03.4. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the
Labour Court in respect of Charge No.III are also contrary to the
material available on record. The report dated 18.07.2000 clearly
discloses that the Equipment In-charge was responsible for not
checking the tray boxes on 10.07.2000, 11.07.2000 and 12.07.2000
and that the responsibility for the missing trays was attributable to the
concerned Assistant Depot Clerk. Despite the said report fixing
responsibility on other officials, no action whatsoever was initiated
against them. On the contrary, the petitioner alone was proceeded
against. It is also submitted that the delay in submitting the report
dated 07.07.2000 occurred because the petitioner was simultaneously
attending duties in the pass section, which constituted a bona fide
explanation. The Labour Court, however, ignored these relevant
circumstances while recording findings against the petitioner.
03.5. It is further contended that the Labour Court committed a
manifest error in upholding Charge Nos. IV and V without assigning
any cogent or independent reasons. According to the learned counsel,
the findings are based merely on the conclusions arrived at in the
domestic enquiry without any objective assessment of the evidence
placed before the Labour Court. Consequently, the award suffers from
non-application of mind and is liable to be interfered with.
5
03.6. It is further submitted that the Labour Court failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in its proper perspective. Though the
Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner, it denied
consequential service benefits without assigning adequate reasons.
As a result, the petitioner lost nearly six annual increments and the
corresponding qualifying service, thereby seriously affecting his
terminal and pensionary benefits. It is contended that the punishment
imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the nature of
the allegations and, therefore, warranted interference by the Labour
Court under Section 11-A of the Act.
03.7. It is also contended that from the date of his removal from
service, i.e., 24.12.2000, till the date of reinstatement on 10.05.2004,
the petitioner remained unemployed despite making sincere efforts to
secure alternative employment. Thereafter, he continued in service
until attaining the age of superannuation and retired on 30.04.2006. In
spite of rendering long years of service, he has been deprived of the
legitimate service and monetary benefits to which he is otherwise
entitled.
03.8. It is further submitted that the impugned award is arbitrary,
illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
6
India, having been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence
on record and without exercising the statutory powers conferred under
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is, therefore, prayed that
this Court may set aside the impugned award to the extent it denies
the petitioner consequential service and monetary benefits and grant
all consequential reliefs.
04.1. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-
Corporation submitted that the petitioner was a habitual delinquent
and had an adverse service record throughout his career in the
respondent-Corporation. It is contended that, during the course of his
service, the petitioner was subjected to several disciplinary
punishments on account of repeated acts of misconduct. The
petitioner was warned/censured on as many as 34 occasions, his
regularization was postponed on three occasions, his annual
increments were deferred on ten occasions, his security deposit was
forfeited on two occasions, and substantial amounts were ordered to
be recovered from his salary on account of dereliction of duty and
alteration of way bills during the year 1988. According to the learned
Standing Counsel, the petitioner’s past service record clearly
demonstrates that he was a habitual offender and did not discharge
7
his duties with the diligence and responsibility expected of an
employee of the Corporation.
04.2. It is further contended that the petitioner committed
serious acts of misconduct by failing to discharge his official duties
faithfully and by repeatedly disobeying the instructions issued by the
respondent-Corporation. The petitioner failed to take necessary
precautionary measures to safeguard the Tray Boxes entrusted to him,
which formed an integral part of his official responsibilities. As a
consequence of his negligence, tickets worth Rs.8,280/- kept in the
Tray Box of Conductor Sri P.V. Bhadraiah were found missing.
Further, the petitioner failed to produce the Tray Boxes containing
tickets valued at Rs.38,958/- for verification and audit, thereby causing
serious administrative lapses and exposing the Corporation to financial
risk. It is, therefore, contended that the charges levelled against the
petitioner were grave in nature and stood fully established in the
departmental proceedings.
04.3. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier
questioned the order of suspension by filing W.P.No.16393 of 2000
before this Court, which came to be dismissed by order dated
11.09.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred W.A. No.1204
of 2000, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on
8
13.11.2000. Thus, according to the respondent-Corporation, the
petitioner has been unsuccessfully challenging the disciplinary
proceedings at every stage and the present writ petition is yet another
attempt to reopen issues which have already attained finality.
04.4. It is further contended that the respondent-Corporation
has scrupulously followed the principles of natural justice throughout
the disciplinary proceedings. Although the petitioner acknowledged
receipt of the charge memorandum, he failed to submit any
explanation to the charges levelled against him. Consequently, a
regular departmental enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer issued
notices on several occasions calling upon the petitioner to participate
in the enquiry. The notices sent through Registered Post
Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) were returned with the postal
endorsement “Refused”, while other notices were returned unserved
with the endorsement that the petitioner was not available at the given
address. Despite being afforded sufficient and reasonable
opportunities to participate in the enquiry, the petitioner deliberately
abstained from the proceedings. In those circumstances, the Enquiry
Officer was left with no alternative except to conduct the enquiry ex
parte in accordance with the applicable service regulations.
9
04.5. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority, upon
considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the material
available on record, passed the order of removal from service in
accordance with law. The Labour Court, after independently
examining the evidence and exercising its jurisdiction under the
Industrial Disputes Act, partly interfered with the punishment by
directing reinstatement of the petitioner, while denying certain
consequential benefits. The Labour Court has assigned cogent and
valid reasons for the conclusions arrived at, and the impugned award
neither suffers from any perversity nor discloses any error apparent on
the face of the record warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner has
failed to establish any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned award.
Since the findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on proper
appreciation of the evidence and the disciplinary proceedings were
conducted strictly in accordance with law and the principles of natural
justice, no case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise
of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the learned Standing
Counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
05. Having considered the rival submissions and upon a
careful examination of the material placed on record, it is evident that,
10
during the proceedings before the Labour Court, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner filed a memo expressly stating that the
petitioner was not disputing the procedural aspects of the domestic
enquiry. A careful perusal of the record further discloses that the
petitioner was proceeded against on multiple charges relating to
negligence in the discharge of his official duties, failure to detect short
remittances, delayed remittance of Corporation funds, failure to
safeguard valuable property belonging to the respondent-Corporation,
non-production of tray boxes containing tickets of substantial value,
and other lapses connected with the discharge of his official
responsibilities. Upon consideration of the enquiry report and the
material available on record, the disciplinary authority found the
charges proved and imposed the punishment of removal from service.
06. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution does not permit this Court to re-appreciate the evidence
as if sitting in appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court.
Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence,
or suffering from patent illegality, interference is not warranted.
07. It is relevant to note that the petitioner admittedly did not
participate in the departmental enquiry. The record produced by the
respondent-corporation discloses that repeated notices were issued to
11
the petitioner and that notices sent through Registered Post
Acknowledgment Due were either returned with the endorsement
“Refused” or returned unserved on account of his non-availability. In
those circumstances, the Enquiry Officer had no option except to
proceed ex parte. The petitioner cannot now complain of violation of
principles of natural justice after having failed to avail the opportunities
extended to him. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is
entitled to full back wages because reinstatement was ordered.
08. In the above scenario, it is apt to refer the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya 1, wherein it was held at Paragraph
No.38.4 that:
“38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the
enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent
with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing
orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was
disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will
have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if
the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee
or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the
employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample
justification for award of full back wages.”
09. In the present case, the Labour Court neither declared the
petitioner to be completely innocent nor held that the disciplinary
1
(2013) 10 SCC 324
12
proceedings were vitiated by any illegality. While considering the fact
that the petitioner had suffered several punishments during the course
of his service and that the repeated instances of misconduct had
resulted in warnings, censures, postponement of regularization,
deferment of annual increments, forfeiture of security deposits and
recoveries, the Labour Court showed considerable indulgence to the
petitioner. Though the disciplinary authority had imposed the
punishment of removal from service, the Labour Court, in exercise of
its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, modified
the said punishment by directing reinstatement of the petitioner into
service with continuity of service. The only consequences retained by
the Labour Court were the deferment of two annual grade increments
with cumulative effect and the denial of back wages and attendance
benefits. Such modification itself demonstrates that the Labour Court
judiciously balanced the competing equities between the rights of the
workman and the interests of the respondent-Corporation.
10. Further, it is apparent from the record that the Award was
passed on 06.01.2004, whereas the present writ petition came to be
instituted only on 19.11.2007, after a lapse of more than three years.
It is also significant to note that the Labour Court, whose Award is
under challenge, has not been impleaded as a party respondent. The
13
petitioner has not offered any satisfactory or plausible explanation for
such inordinate delay in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such unexplained
delay assumes considerable significance while exercising the
discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court and, by itself, constitutes a
relevant factor for declining relief.
11. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any
perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error in the Award passed
by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has already extended
substantial relief to the petitioner by directing his reinstatement into
service with continuity of service, notwithstanding the proved
misconduct and his adverse past service record. The Award reflects a
proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Labour Court under
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and strikes a just
balance between the rights of the workman and the interests of the
respondent-Corporation. Accordingly, this Court finds no valid or
sustainable ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Award passed
by the Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of
merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
14
12. Accordingly, the 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: 27-JUL-2026
Ksk/khrm
