HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21508 OF 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against an award made in I.D. No.118 of 1997 dated 19-01-2001 on the file of the learned Labour Court – II, Hyderbad, whereunder claim petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short “the ID Act”), seeking to set aside the removal order dated 27-08-1993 passed by respondent No.2 and to reinstate him with continuity of service and other benefits, was dismissed. 2. Petitioner is the Workman, respondent No.2 is the Management of APSRTC and respondent No.1 is Labour Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in I.D. No.118 of 1997. 4. It appears, Workman joined the service of the Management of APSRTC with effect from 23-08-1988 and after serving more than five years, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 06-05-1993 enumerating the following charges: “1. “You have failed to observe the rule “Issue & Start” which constitutes misconduct under regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963”. 2. “You have failed to issue tickets to 12 individuals and a batch of 5 passengers, who boarded your bus at Patancheru and bound for Velmala ex.stages 1 to 3, eventhough you have collected the requisite fare i.e., Rs.2.00/- for each passenger at boarding point itself, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(vi)(a) and (x) of APSRTC Employees, conduct Regulations, 1963”. 3. “You have failed to close S.R. against stage No.2 hence cross marked. Fare and stages taken as per conductor’s version since conductor is working without MID142, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.18(xxxii) of APSRTC employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963”.” 5. Workman submitted his explanation for the above charges. 6. Having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Workman, a detailed enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry officer and the enquiry officer submitted a report holding Workman guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority after completing formalities, passed order of removal dated 27-08-1993. Aggrieved thereby, Workman raised I.D. No.118 of 1997 by filing claim petition under Section 2-A(2) of the ID Act. 7. It was the case of the Workman before the Labour Court that the charges are as vague as they could be, in fact, no misconduct was made out against him. Further, there was no evidence whatsoever to hold him guilty of the charges. Even assuming that the charges against the Workman are proved, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct. 8. Whereas, Management of APSRTC filed a detailed counter denying allegations made by the Workman and submitted that the charges are very grave in nature and since the charges were proved, Workman was removed from service and, as such, no interference is called for by the Labour Court. 9. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked on behalf of the Workman. However, on behalf of the Management of APSRTC, Exs.M-1 to M-23 were marked, but no oral evidence was adduced. 10. After perusal of the entire evidence placed before the Labour Court, it came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Management of APSRTC was valid and that the punishment of removal from service was justified and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed. 11. Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the Workman, strenuously contended that bus was to travel from Patancheru to Janwada and the passengers in question were travelling from Stage No.1 to Stage No.3; Stage No.1 is Patancheru, Stage No.2 is Pati and Stage No.3 is Velmala; the fare charge was Rs.2/- per individual passenger. The Workman has collected individual fare of Rs.2/- from each of the 12 passengers and a batch of 5 passengers, who were admittedly travelling from Patancheru to Velmala, and the check took place even before the bus reached Stage No.2 Pati and the Workman was in the process of issuing tickets after collecting money and at that stage, check had taken place; apart from this, for moffussil services, one fare stage is allowed for completing the ticket issue; therefore, the question of not issuing tickets or closing the S.R. against Stage No.2 does not arise and even assuming that there was some misconduct on the part of the Workman, it was very trivial in nature and dismissal from service is unwarranted for the same. 12. Per contra, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Management of APSRTC, supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that when the Labour Court itself could not grant any relief, the question of granting any relief by this Court in a case of this nature does not arise. As many as 17 passengers were found without tickets though the Workman has collected fare from them and therefore the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference. 13. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. 14. At the outset, it is to be noticed, except the present misconduct in question, there was no other misconduct alleged against the Workman and he had put in five (5) years of clean service. The case of the Management of APSRTC is that the Workman while conducting the bus on 30-04-1993, committed irregularities as noticed above. Though he has collected fare of Rs.2/- from each of the 17 passengers, did not issue tickets when the bus was checked at Stage No.2 Pati. This is the sum and substance of the charge. But, it is unfortunate that the third charge is that the Workman failed to close S.R. against Stage No.2. It is not the case of the management that bus travelled beyond Stage No.2. Even the check, according to the management, has taken place at Stage No.2. It has not crossed Stage No.2. Firstly, a Conductor is supposed to complete the ticket issues within one fare stage in the moffussil services. Admittedly, this was a moffussil route. Therefore, there was no misconduct on the part of Workman. Further, the check had taken place at Stage No.2 Pati itself. Therefore, not closing S.R. against Stage No.2 does not arise. Apart from this, there is no past misconduct attributable to the Workman. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the charges are not only trivial, but they were not proved. The very charge memo itself is as vague as it could be. At one breath, it says that the check had taken place at Stage No.2 and at the other breath it says the Workman has not closed the S.R. against Stage No.2. The disciplinary authority or the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case while holding the Workman guilty of the charges. Even assuming that there was misconduct on the part of the Workman, it was trivial and for such misconduct, removal from service is shockingly disproportionate. 15. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has committed an error in not exercising its discretionary powers vested under Section 11-A of the ID Act and granting relief to the Workman. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service but without any backwages and attendant benefits. 16. Accordingly, the Management of APSRTC is directed to reinstate the Workman with continuity of service but without backwages and attendant benefits. Further, service during which the Workman was kept out of employment shall be taken into consideration only for the purpose of retrial benefits. 16. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J August 9, 2010. PV