ORDER A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J. 1. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 4.07.1987. It is stated that at the time of his appointment he produced his original S.S.C certificate and after verification he was appointed for the post of conductor. While so, as the petitioner feel sick due to Jaundice in the 1st week of September, 1989 and could not recover, the family members of the petitioner took him to their native place in Nalgonda for treatment by informing the same to the respondent-corporation duly furnishing the residence address for communication. After recovery, when the petitioner reported to duty on 12.03.1989, surprisingly he received the termination order dated 09.03.1989 alleging that he obtained appointment as conductor by producing bogus S.S.C. certificate. Aggrieved by the termination order, the petitioner approached the Labour Court in I.D. No. 125 of 1997 and the Labour Court vide award dated 9.03.2000 confirmed the termination order passed by the respondent-corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-corporation admitting that the petitioner was appointed as casual conductor on 6.07.1987 at Barkatpura depot. He was transferred and posted to Charminar depot re-categorising him as temporary conductor with effect from 8.02.1988. The Divisional Manager, Secunderabad, who is the recruiting authority for conductors, informed that the SSC memo submitted by the petitioner is forged one as per the letter dated 31.10.1988 of the Additional Joint Secretary, SSC Board, and directed the concerned to initiate disciplinary action. As there was prima facie case, the petitioner was placed under suspension and issued charged sheet. The suspension order and the charge sheet were sent to the residential address of the petitioner through registered post acknowledgment due, which were returned with endorsement no such person in H. No. 3-2-124 hence returned to sender. Accordingly, the charge sheet and suspension order were exhibited on the notice board for seven days duly obtaining the signature of two witnesses. Since the petitioner did not respondent to the charge sheet, the case was entrusted to the Chief Inspector, Enquiries, Divisional Managers Office, Charminar for conducting detailed enquiry. The enquiry officer sent notice dated 01.02.1989 to the petitioner duly intimating the date of enquiry as 14.02.1989. Since the petitioner did not respondent to the charge sheet, the case was entrusted to the Chief Inspector, Enquiries, Divisional Managers Office, Charminar for conducting detailed enquiry. The enquiry officer sent notice dated 01.02.1989 to the petitioner duly intimating the date of enquiry as 14.02.1989. The petitioner acknowledged the notice on 04.02.1989 but wilfully not attended the enquiry and hence the enquiry officer conducted ex parte enquiry against the petitioner and held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt and came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal from service is fit and proper to be imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly a show cause notice of removal from service was sent to the residential address of the petitioner. As the petitioner refused to receive the notice, the same was exhibited on the notice board for seven days after obtaining the signatures of two witnesses, and thereafter, the then Depot Manager, Falaknuma issued final order of termination dated 9.03.1989. It is stated that the removal of the petitioner from the service of the corporation was on the basis of the grave charges, namely, securing appointment as casual conductor through a bogus SSC certificate, and as such, the termination order is valid. It is also stated that the Labour Court after considering the case of the petitioner confirmed the order of termination and dismissed the I.D. on the ground of laches. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour for the 1st respondent and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent. 4. The petitioner was suspended from service on the following charges, which read as under: "1. For having produced a bogus secondary school certificate No. 89428 to secure appointment as casual conductor on daily wage basis. 2. For having cheated the corporation to secure appointment in APSRTC." 5. He was also issued with charge sheet and the same was sent to the residential address furnished by him in the official records. As the same was returned an enquiry was conducted and the charges were held proved, and after issuing show cause notice of removal as the petitioner did not respond even after receiving the said notice, the final order of removal was passed. The enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority considered the same and came to the conclusion that the charges held proved. The enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority considered the same and came to the conclusion that the charges held proved. The Labour Court also considered the facts and circumstances and came to the conclusion that the petitioner produced bogus SSC certificate and obtained employment and accordingly dismissed the I.D. confirming the termination order. 6. As can be seen from the record, the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and hence they are held proved. More over, the petitioner approached the labour Court after a period of eight years and on that ground also the labour Court was not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. A perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court goes to show that the Labour Court has considered the pleas in detail and this Court cannot re-appreciate the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Apex Court in Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India & others at paragraph No. 62 held as under: "It is by now well settled that judicial review of the administrative action/quasi judicial orders passed by the Government is limited only to correcting the errors of law or fundamental procedural requirements which may lead to manifest injustice. When the conclusions of the authority are based on evidence, the same cannot be re-appreciated by the court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. The court does not exercise the powers of an appellate court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. It is only in cases where either findings recorded by the administrative/quasi judicial authority are based on no evidence or are so perverse that no reasonable person would have reached such a conclusion on the basis of the material available that the court would be justified to interfere in the decision. The scope of judicial review is limited to the decision making process and not to the decision itself, even if the same appears to be erroneous." 8. In view of the same, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.