ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. This writ petition is filed by the Divisional Engineer (Electrical), APNPDCL, Khammam, (for short, ‘the Department’) challenging the Award dated 14.02.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in ID No.125 of 2005. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court directed the petitioner-Department to reinstate the 2nd respondent-workman as a Junior Lineman afresh without continuity of service or backwages or attendant benefits. 2. The case in a nutshell is that the 2nd respondent workman was appointed in the service of petitioner-Department on 01.08.2002 as Junior Lineman on contract basis. Complaints were received against him that he is not staying in the headquarters, thereby causing inconvenience to the consumers, that he has collected Rs.1300/- from one N. Lalaiah S/o Ramulu towards new service connection and the 2nd respondent fixed a removed meter for which no bills were received by Lalaiah for six months. The Divisional Engineer forwarded the complaints and preliminary enquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted to the Divisional Engineer (O) Sattupally, vide proceedings dated 28.09.2004. Based on the complaints, the respondent was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 04.10.2004, and thereafter a charge sheet was issued on 20.10.2004 alleging four charges. The purport of the charges is that under Charge No.1, the 2nd respondent workman is alleged to have accepted an amount of Rs.1300/- from Sri Lalaiah for providing new service connection under Category-I; Charge No.2 relates to fixing a removed meter for Lalaiah for which no bills were received for six months; Charge No.3 relates to the 2nd respondent not staying in the Headquarters thereby causing inconvenience; and Charge No.4 relates to non-arranging tom-tom in the village on 27.09.2004 inspite of specific instructions; thereby disobeying the orders of superior officers. An enquiry was conducted into the charges in the charge sheet. Charges 1 and 2 were held to be proved and Charges 3 and 4 are not proved. The Divisional Engineer issued a Show Cause notice dated 02.02.2005 for which the workman submitted his explanation dated 15.02.2005. Thereafter, the Divisional Engineer (O), by proceedings dated 02.03.2005, imposed the punishment of removal from service. The workman approached the Labour Court by filing ID No.125 of 2005. The Labour Court, after due enquiry, passed the impugned Award dated 14.02.2008. 3. Heard Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned counsel for the petitioner-Department, and Sri V. Narsimha Goud, for the 2nd respondent-workman. 4. The workman approached the Labour Court by filing ID No.125 of 2005. The Labour Court, after due enquiry, passed the impugned Award dated 14.02.2008. 3. Heard Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned counsel for the petitioner-Department, and Sri V. Narsimha Goud, for the 2nd respondent-workman. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the Labour Court having recorded a finding, that charges 1 and 2 with regard to mis-utilization of departmental meters, and causing loss of revenue to the Department have been proved, erred in directing reinstatement. It is further contended that the Labour Court recorded a finding that the workman himself admitted that he received an amount of Rs.1300/- from one N. Lalaiah and fixed the meter without permission of higher authorities, and even during enquiry it was established that the name of Lalaiah was registered in A-form for meter on 05.10.2004 and the meter was fixed prior to registration. The Labour Court also recorded that respondent workman has engaged private persons to discharge his duties and the said private persons has fixed the meter. The Labour Court categorically recorded a finding that the respondent workman demanded and received Rs.1300/- from one Lalaiah for releasing new service but heas not obtained A form and necessary demand drafts and thereafter Lalaih has paid the said amount on 05.10.2004 for obtaining the meter. It is therefore contended that there is serious charge of misappropriation and misutilization departmental meters and therefore the impugned Award directing reinstatement is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent workman would contend that the Labour Court has considered the evidence available on record in proper perspective and directed reinstatement by the impugned Award and therefore the same does not warrant interference by this Court. 6. It is pertinent to note that the Labour Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, observed that the 2nd respondent workman has not disputed the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner Department, and that sufficient opportunity was given to the workman at every point of time and enquiry was conducted according to the principles of natural justice. The enquiry proceedings were marked as Ex.M1 and both the parties lead additional evidence before the Labour Court. The workman was examined as WW-1 and Exs.W1 to W3 were marked. The enquiry proceedings were marked as Ex.M1 and both the parties lead additional evidence before the Labour Court. The workman was examined as WW-1 and Exs.W1 to W3 were marked. The petitioner got examined as MW-1 and Ex.M1 was marked through him. 7. With regard to the charge that the workman demanded and accepted Rs.1300/- from one Lalaiah, resident of Jannaram village, towards release of new Service connection, it is observed by the Labour Court that the villagers complained that the workman was not residing in the village, and that one Lalaih of Jannaram village complained that he paid Rs.1300/- to the Junior Lineman of the village about 8 months back, and from six months he is not receiving the current bills though he requested the Junior Lineman for allotment of service number for the meter and for issuance of bill, he did not respond positively and therefore Lalaiah requested the Divisional Engineer to do justice to him, and basing on that complaint, the spot statement of the petitioner was recorded wherein the workman stated that he fixed the meter in the house of Lalaiah without authorization of the officers and Lalaiah paid Rs.1300/- and requested the authority to excuse him for the said mistake. Based on that the Divisional Engineer, Khammam, addressed letter to Divisional Engineer Sathupally stating that the workman was not residing at Headquarters, Jannaram, but at Enkuru and he has fixed the struck-up meter given to him for replacement to Lalaih on collecting Rs.1300/- from him and he has not arranged tom-tom in the village on 27.09.2004 and disciplinary action has to be initiated against him, and accordingly he was charge sheeted. 8. The Labour Court further observed that the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tallada, recorded the statement of Lalaih. The workman did not arrange for tom-tom on 27.09.2004, and the workman was not residing in the village. The workman in his evidence deposed that he gave the statement on 27.09.2004 under fear at that time of giving statement, and that Lalaiah registered in A-form on 05.10.2004 but he was having meter prior to that and that the workman has not mis-utilized the departmental meters and did not cause loss of revenue, and that he does not know about the issuance of S.No.343971/Havells-make meter. The workman further deposed that he was residing in the house of G. Rama Rao, Jannaram from 7 months, and prior to that he was residing in Enkuru. 9. The Labour Court further observed that Lalaih gave statement on 27.09.2004 stating that his meter was fixed by a private person sent by the workman and that the workman came with two persons and that Lalaiah gave Rs.1300/- to one of the persons who counted the same and gave it to the workman, and the meter was fixed two months after that by a private person sent by the workman. 10. The Labour Court further observed that Prahlada Rao who signed on the statement given on 27.09.2004 admitted that they were not having power in their village regularly and services were disconnected and out of anger they complained against the workman but in reality the workman was residing in the house of G. Rama Rao, and they have not anticipated the suspension of the workman in view of their false complaint and hence they are deposing correctly, and tom-tom was performed in their village on 27.09.2004. It was further observed by the Labour Court that during cross-examination of workman, he stated that he was working as lineman in Jannaram and Lalaih was residing in the same village in rented house, and some private people were attending the work in his house, and that the workman executed the document dated 27.09.2004 due to the threat of Dy.Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer and later he gave oral complaint regading the same to the Assistant Engineer, but not written complaint. And that he does not know the working condition of the meter fixed in the house of Lalaiah is not known to him, and that Lalaiah was not in the D-list and he came to know that Lalaiah took illegal connection from some private person and that he instructed the concerned person to perform tom-tom on 27.09.2004 but it was performed on next day, and that he has to look after 14 villages including Jannaram. 11. 11. The Labour Court further observed that the Divisional Engineer (Transformers) Khammam was examined as MW-1, and during his cross examination, he stated that he worked from 31.03.2004 to 31.05.2007 and that the workman was working under the control of Divisional Engineer, Sathupally and a complaint was given by villagers against him and he handed over the same to the Department, and one Prahlada Rao and N.Laxmaiah gave complaints, regarding non-issuance of DDs and another regarding providing new meter unauthorisedly. He recorded spot explanation, took the signatures of line inspector and stated that during the enquiry first two charges were proved against him; and they have not examined the private person to whom Lalaiah gave the amount, and that their department is maintaining the meters issuance register but it was not verified by the enquiry officer, and meters were supplied to the workman to replace the struck up meters and he fixed the said meters in the house of Lalaih and they have not registered any case against Lalaiah for taking illegal connection as their department people fixed the meter in his house. 12. The Labour Court further observed that the enquiry officer recorded his findings and held that charges 3 and 4 were not proved against the workman; and based on the enquiry findings a Show Cause notice of removal from service was issued, and the workman submitted his explanation and then he was removed. 13. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence and material on record, observed with regard to the charges on the workman at paragraph 14 as follows : “It clearly shows that he has authorized a private person to discharge his duties and he has not verified the same. Cumulative effect of the entire evidence before the court clearly goes to show that petitioner demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.1300/- from N. Lalaiah for release of new service but he has not obtained “A” and necessary DDs and later Lalaiah himself paid the amount on 5.10.2004 for obtaining meter and it clearly shows that the said amount of Rs.1300/- given to the petitioner was not deposited by him by way of DDs before the concerned authorities” 14. Further, with regard to enquiry of Assistant Engineer, the Labour Court observed at paragraph 16 as follows : “Assistant Engineer during the enquiry clearly stated that he will verify the meter issuance register to know whether the meter No.343971/Havels make was allotted to the petitioner or not but at no point of time he has submitted the required important particulars to the court to prove their allegation beyond reasonable doubt. It is for them to establish the fact prior to the imposition of the stringent penalty of removal. Moreover MW-1 during the cross examination answered that they have not initiated action against Lalaiah for taking illegal connection because as per the complaint “departmental people fixed the meter and the complaint was given by the consumer”. It clearly shows that the private person fixed the meter is also authorized by the department to do so. Petitioner is entrusted the work of 14 villages though in usual course he has to attend 4 villages and hence the excess load of work entrusted to him necessarily leads him to engage private persons and as per the evidence it seems that this fact was known to the department and they have also authorized the said persons. Considering the lapses of the respondents court feels that the punishment of removal imposed upon him is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct …..” 15. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the material on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending, shall stand closed.