The charges are as under For having stolen the Corporation property of fuel injection pump bearing No.
AVD 2305 which was fitted to the engine No.
For having stolen the sponge sheets SR from the garage of Gajuwaka depot which companystitutes misconduct under Reg.
Hence, by his judgment and order dated 31.12.2004, the learned Single Judge passed a judgment by setting aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the respondent with companytinuity of service but without back wages.
In the domestic enquiry companyducted on the charges levelled against the respondent, full and fair opportunity was given to him to defend himself.
The Criminal Court by its judgment and order dated 16.05.1987 acquitted the respondent of the charges that were levelled against him.
170207 during the night shift on 23/24.08.86 in the garage which companystitutes misconduct under Reg.
28 x of APSRTC Employees Conduct, Regulations, 1963.
139/1992, the Labour Court came to the companyclusion that the charges holding that the respondent was involved in a case of theft of the property belonging to the Corporation were companyrectly proved and the punishment of removal was justified under the factual circumstances of the case.
In I.D. No.
By its impugned order dated 29.06.2005, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein.
751/1987.
The Appellant Corporation preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
A criminal case was also initiated against the respondent in C.C. No.
A charge sheet was issued to the respondent framing four charges.
The Enquiry Officer, on companypletion of the domestic enquiry, had submitted a report holding the respondent guilty of all the charges that were levelled against him.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the Division Bench, the above Civil Appeal has been filed in this Court.
A sponge sheet was also stolen from the garage of Gajuwaka Depot, where he was working.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and submit a report.
Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court came to a companyclusion that the charges of theft were companyrectly proved against the respondent.
Basing on the Enquiry Officers report, the Depot Manager, on independently examining the matter, came to a companyclusion that orders of removal would be an appropriate punishment for the proved charges of theft.
This apart, he was also involved in stealing an alternator bearing while working in the night shift on 11.09.1986.
He also unauthorisedly entered into the tyre section of the depot and stole a new tube of 900 x 20 size on 23/24.09.1986.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Aggrieved by the order of his removal, the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute.
25393/2005 Dr. AR.
But, however, came to a companyclusion that punishment of removal was number in companysonance with the gravity of the charges proved against the respondent.
The Department Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. is the appellant in this appeal.
While working as mechanic, he was involved in a serious case of theft.
The respondent joined as cleaner in the APSRTC in short the Corporation on 02.10.1976.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
Accordingly, the Single Judge held that the respondent had put in 12 years of unblemished service and deserved a lenient view in the matter.
Accordingly, the Depot Manager issued proceedings for removing the respondent from the services of the Corporation.
On 23/24.08.1986, while working in the night shift, he companymitted a theft of Fuel Injection Pump.
