Dismissed

K.Suryaprakasharao v. the Reg.Manager, Apsrtc, E.G.Dist. & Anr.

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2026WP/12861/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conductor of APSRTC removed from service for ticketless-travel irregularities; punishment reduced on review to pay reduction for two years. Tribunal upheld it in reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court held that certiorari is supervisory, not appellate, and declined to reappreciate enquiry evidence, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

K.Suryaprakasharao Vs the Reg.Manager… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

Bench Sr.No:-28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506] AT AMARAVATI

¶2

APHC010575882005

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO: 12861 of 2005

¶4

K.Suryaprakasharao, Conductor, E.455488, Eleswaram ...Petitioner APSRTC Depot.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Rajahmundry, East ...Respondent(s) Godavari District & Ors.

¶7

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner: Sri S. A. RAZAK Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Sri K. SRINIVASA PRASAD, SC For APSRTC; G.P. FOR LABOUR

¶9

CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶10

DATE : 6th March 2026

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Present writ petition assails award, dated 04.05.2004, passed in

¶13

I.D.No.245 of 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

¶14

Court, Visakhapatnam, and consequently, seeks to quash the same by setting aside the order of punishment and to award the consequential

¶15

service benefits.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶17

(a) Petitioner worked as Conductor with the 1^st respondent

¶18

Corporation. When petitioner was on duty and en-route from Pithapuram to Samarlakota, the TTIs conducted check at Samarlakota

¶19

¶20

CGR, J. W.P.No.12861 of 2005

¶21

bus station. It was noticed that two of the passengers were found to be travelling without tickets. The check revealed that though the said passengers stated to have paid the requisite fare of Rs.6/-, the Conductor did not issue the tickets. In that context, on the allegations that the Conductor has not issued tickets, that he refused to record statements of passengers, failed to maintain the S.R. properly, and lastly, that he exhibited improper behaviour and abused TTIs with unparliamentary language, charge memo, dated 25.08.1994, came to be issued. The enquiry officer held that all charges came to be proved. The same eventually resulted in petitioner being removed from service vide orders, dated 07.03.1993. Even appeal preferred against the said order got confirmed. On further review, though the reviewing authority did not find any illegality in the orders of removal, as confirmed by the appellate authority, considering the short span of service left out, lenient view was taken and thereby the order of removal came to be modified to that of reduction of pay to minimum scale of Conductor for a period of two years with cumulative effect and the suspension period was treated to be not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments.

¶22

(b) Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, dated 17.05.1995, petitioner through the Union raised a dispute and sought for reference in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, “the I.D.Act”). The Government had accordingly made a reference to the Tribunal to

¶23

¶24

CGR, J. W.P.No.12861 of 2005

¶25

decide on the question whether the punishment imposed by reviewing authority was justified and if not, what relief the workman entitled to.

¶26

(c) Before the Tribunal, petitioner did not examine anyone, however, marked the statements of passengers, driver, and himself, which were part of the enquiry report in the departmental enquiry. On the other hand, the Management has exhibited Exs.M1 to M26, which included enquiry report, marked under Ex.M20.

¶27

(d) The Tribunal having considered aforesaid evidence and also the stand of petitioner that he was not disputing the validity of domestic enquiry and the report marked under Ex.M20, ultimately, has come to conclusion that the opinion and view expressed by reviewing authority does not call for interference, inasmuch as though there were clear findings in the domestic enquiry, supporting the order of removal as confirmed by the appellate authority, still the reviewing authority has taken a lenient view and modified punishment so imposed cannot be said to be unjustified. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed.

¶28

3. Heard Sri S.A.Kalam Riyaz, learned counsel, representing Sri S.A. Razzaq, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Srinivasa Prasad, learned standing counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the 1^st respondent Corporation.

¶29

¶30

CGR, J. W.P.No.12861 of 2005

¶31

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the

¶32

Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective, and important evidence of the passengers and driver, who were introduced by the petitioner, was not at all discussed and merely based on the ultimate findings of enquiry report, the reference came to be answered, which is clearly perverse. In elaboration of said submission, learned counsel has taken this Court to the statements as found in the enquiry report, to buttress that the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer were clearly contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the opinion of enquiry officer could not have been taken as basis for answering the reference.

¶33

5. Per contra , learned standing counsel for 1^st respondent Corporation tried to support the Award passed by the Tribunal. It is contended that the domestic enquiry against petitioner was conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable Regulations of the Corporation,

¶34

that petitioner has been given ample opportunity at every stage i.e., before the enquiry officer, and later before the Depot Manager, who finally passed the order of removal, therefore, the entire exercise of conducting enquiry was done strictly following the fair and transparent procedure adhering to the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority after analysing entire of evidence on record has come to

¶35

¶36

CGR, J. W.P.No.12861 of 2005

¶37

conclusion that the charges levelled against petitioner since came to be proved, imposed appropriate penalty of removal from service and the same has later been confirmed by the appellate authority and even the revisional authority also has concurred with the findings on the charges, therefore, merely because revisional authority has taken a lenient view in modifying the order of punishment, the same cannot be found fault with, and hence, would urge to dismiss the writ petition.

¶38

6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both

¶39

the learned counsels.

¶40

7. It is fairly well settled now that certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. By its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected, but not a wrong decision. It should be well remembered at the cost of repetition that certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory.

¶41

8. Petitioner mainly tried to emphasize that the award suffers from perversity on account of non-appreciation of evidence on record. In order to test the said submission, it has to be seen that what evidence

¶42

¶43

CGR, J. W.P.No.12861 of 2005

¶44

has been placed on record by the petitioner, inasmuch as it is for the petitioner to establish his case based on the evidence that he has let in to clearly demonstrate the order of removal as confirmed by appellate authority and modified by the reviewing authority suffered from any illegality.

¶45

9. As can be seen from the impugned award, none were examined for petitioner, however, the statements of passengers and driver, as recorded before the enquiry officer in the course of disciplinary proceedings, were marked without independently examining them before the Tribunal. Whereas, the Management has got marked Exs.M1 to M26.

¶46

10. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that petitioner was not disputing the validity of domestic enquiry, meaning thereby, even the enquiry report was not under dispute. Merely because some of the statements, which were made by the passengers and driver spoke in favour of petitioner, the same cannot be considered in isolation de hors the other overwhelming material on record and the ultimate findings and conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer. Even the enquiry officer’s findings and opinion would be only one piece of material evidence, ultimately, it is the decision of disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, matters for examining as to

¶47

¶48

CGR, J. W.P.No.12861 of 2005

¶49

whether the conclusions so arrived at were based on no evidence at all. Apparently, the orders of disciplinary authority, appellate authority and as well as the reviewing authority, recorded reasons on appreciation of evidence in coming to the decision of imposing the punishment against petitioner, and even the Tribunal found such orders to be completely justified.

¶50

11. Therefore, merely because the evidence of passengers and the driver as recorded in the process of domestic enquiry have some sort of bearing on the proceedings to navigate in favour of petitioner, and the decision arrived based on such evidence, even if amounted to a wrong decision, this Court, exercising certiorari jurisdiction, cannot correct such errors. Even otherwise, on a close look at the enquiry report and the statements of passengers and driver recorded therein, the enquiry officer has formed an opinion that there was a clear paradigm shift in their initial versions. Initially, both of them stated to have spoken against the petitioner and even signed the statements, however, later when they were introduced on behalf of the Conductor in the course of enquiry before the enquiry officer, they spoke otherwise, completely in contradiction. The view expressed by the enquiry officer has been evaluated by the disciplinary authority and other higher authorities in coming to ultimate conclusion that the charges have been proved,

¶51

¶52

CGR, J. W.P.No.12861 of 2005

¶53

therefore, this Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction would not reappreciate the evidence on record sitting as an appellate authority. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition.

¶54

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶55

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if

¶56

any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶57

_____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶58

K.Suryaprakasharao v. the Reg.Manager, Apsrtc, E.G.Dist. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Suryaprakasharao v. the Reg.Manager, Apsrtc, E.G.Dist. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc, W.G.District Vs Depot Secretary, Apsrtc, National Mazdoor Union, and Another

Challa Rama Rao E.G.Dist. Vs Govt. of Ap, Social Welfare Dept. & Ors.

Abdul Shukoor, W.G.District Vs Eastern Power Distribution, Vis. & 2 Others

R. Krishnaiah, Nellore Dist. Vs the District Cooperative Officer & 2 Others

N Noorbasha Vs M. Jagdish

Chetarajupalli Venkateswara Rao Vs D T v Krishna Rao