The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated an APSRTC employee removed for alleged intoxication. The Court held no patent illegality existed as the Labour Court correctly relied on prior adjudication.
The Writ Petition was dismissed and the Labour Court Award was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 41162 OF 2016
(CNR No.HBHC010072452016)
Between:
The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Midhani Bus Depot
….. Petitioner
And
Sri V. Muthyalu & another
….. Respondents
Reserved on : 07.08.2026 Pronounced on : 08.09.2026
Uploaded on : 08.09.2026
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition questions the Award dated 10.06.2016 in I.D. No.87 of 2014, by which, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal passed against Respondent No.1, directed his reinstatement into service with 50% back-wages, and further directed that period out of service be treated as continuity of service for the purposes of seniority, increments and pension.
2
from 01.04.1993. He had earlier been imposed punishment of deferment of annual increments for an act of misconduct. According to petitioner, on 28.02.2013, Respondent No.1 reported for duty at about 13.50 hours and, when he was about to depart for his trip in bus No. AP282552, the Security Guard at the main gate of Midhani Bus Depot checked him with a breath analyser in the presence of Constable C.B. Reddy, Employee No.201873, and Controller P. Anjaiah, Employee No.104119. He was tested positive for intoxication and that the alleged conduct constituted serious misconduct under the applicable APSRTC Employees’ Conduct Regulations, 1963. 2.1. It is stated, Respondent No.1 was placed under suspension and charge-sheet was issued on 01.03.2013. Respondent No.1 submitted explanation on 24.03.2013. As the said explanation was not found satisfactory, the Assistant Manager, Enquiries, of the DVM, Hyderabad office, was nominated as the Enquiry Officer. Respondent No.1 participated in the domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer thereafter, submitted his findings dated 16.08.2013, holding Respondent No.1 guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority issued show-cause notice proposing removal on 04.10.2013. The said notice was served on Respondent No.1, who submitted his explanation on 11.10.2013. After considering the explanation
3
and the evidence available on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order of removal by proceedings dated 15.10.2013.
2.2. The Appeal against the order of removal was rejected by proceedings dated 20.12.2013; so also the review petition by the Regional Manager, Hyderabad, by proceedings dated 01.02.2014. Respondent No.1 also filed a mercy petition before the Executive Director, GHZ, which was rejected on 11.03.2014. Thereafter, he raised the subject I.D. The case of petitioner is that Respondent No.1 had not questioned the validity of the domestic enquiry before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, hence, the findings of the Enquiry Officer ought to have been accepted and the Labour Court could not have reappreciated the evidence or interfered with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
2.3. Petitioner further contended that Respondent No.1 was a Driver entrusted with the responsibility of transporting general public and intoxication while performing service amounted to grave misconduct. The Labour Court ought to have considered the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and the nature of the duties discharged by Respondent No.1. According to petitioner, the reports submitted by Constable and Controller constituted primary evidence establishing that Respondent No.1
4
was under intoxication. It was further contended that the degree of proof applicable in a domestic enquiry is different from the degree of proof applicable in criminal proceedings. According to petitioner, proof on the basis of preponderance of probabilities was sufficient to establish the charge in a domestic enquiry.
2.4. Petitioner also contended that the Labour Court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned order of punishment imposed after a proper enquiry, particularly when, according to the petitioner, the Labour Court itself had held that Respondent No.1 had consumed alcohol on the previous day.
5
punishment after considering the material placed before it. The Award was therefore, not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction unless the petitioner established patent illegality, perversity, violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error.
6
Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munna Lal v. Union of India1 and held that there is no cogent particular reason to prove that Respondent No.1 consumed alcohol when he was on duty. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court directed the Corporation to reinstate Respondent No.1 into service with 50% back wages for the period he is out of service and the service during the period of out of service would be treated as continuity of service for other service benefits such as seniority, increment and pension. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said Award, hence, is of the opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
costs.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
08th September 2026
ksld
1 2010(3) SLR (SC) 768
7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award set aside removal and ordered reinstatement with back-wages.
Whether the Corporation failed to conduct blood and urine tests as required by law prior to terminating an employee based on a breath analyser report.
Whether evidence regarding alcohol consumption while on leave is relevant to a charge of intoxication while on duty.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Munna Lal v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶28
Munna Lal v. Union of India, 2010(3) SLR (SC) 768
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Midhani Bus Depot
Sri V. Muthyalu
another
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
