HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 24689 of 2006 DATED: 09.02.2011 Between: S.B.R. Murthy .. Petitioner And 1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC 2. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager 3. The Regional Manager .. Respondents O R D E R:- This writ petition is directed against the Award dated 16.08.2005 made in I.D. No. 63 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed by the petitioner-workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) seeking to set aside the removal order passed by the 1st respondent-Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., was rejected in toto. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1986. While so, on 08.01.2000, when he was conducting bus service from Podur to Bhimavaram, a batch of nine coolies boarded the bus at Srungavruksham to go to Bhimavaram. When the petitioner punched nine tickets of Rs.4/- denomination and gave them to the passengers, they were informed by their master to get down the bus and travel by a private lorry, which was following the bus. Then, all the nine passengers got down the bus, but the petitioner, though punched the tickets, could not collect the fare from them. According to the petitioner, after the bus reached Bhimavaram, he immediately approached the Traffic Inspector and informed him what had exactly transpired. The T.T.Is. inspected the bus and found the conduct of the petitioner wrong, and issued a charge memo, on the basis of which, the 1st respondent-Depot Manager issued a charge sheet enumerating the following charges. (i) For having not accounted Rs.4/- denomination tickets bearing Nos.700/209774 to 783 in the S.R. maintained by him, while conducting the vehicle No.AP9Z 7746 on the route Poduru to Bhimavaram on 08.01.2000, which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employee(Conduct) Reg. 1963. (ii) For having kept Rs.4/- denomination tickets E.9 bearing Nos.700/209774 to 782 which were already punched from stage Nos.3 to 1 and not accounted for in the S.R. while conducting the service of vehicle No. AP9Z 7746 on the route Poduru to Bhimavaram on 08.01.2000, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees” (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. (iii) For having not closed Rs.4/- denomination correctly from stage Nos.3 to 1 in the S.R. bearing No. A3/9164889 while conducting service of the vehicle No. AP 9Z 7746 on the route Poduru to Bhimavaram on 08.01.2000, which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above charges mentioning that he had no intention to defraud the Corporation nor did he collect the money, only because 9 coolies, who boarded the bus immediately after the tickets were punched, got down the bus since their master asked them to travel by a private vehicle, and thus, those tickets could not be issued and were not even accounted for in the S.R. This itself shows the innocence of the petitioner. However, the explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted and a detailed enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges and after completing all the formalities, the disciplinary authority passed the removal order dated 16.06.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but it was rejected on 20.07.2000. Having no alternative, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.107 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Guntur, however the same was transferred to Hyderabad and the learned Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad renumbered it as I.D. No. 63 of 2004. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that no misconduct is attributable to him, and he has neither committed any mistake nor caused any loss caused to the Corporation. He admitted that without collecting the money from those nine passengers, he hurriedly punched the tickets, but they got down immediately on being called by their master. He did not account for the same as to the issues in the S.R. The enquiry conducted is also not proper and there is absolutely no evidence to hold that he is guilty of the charges. Even assuming that there is misconduct on the part of the petitioner, and when the same is trivial in nature, punishment of removal from service is not warranted, and the Labour Court also toed the line of reasoning of the appellate authority and the disciplinary authorities which is erroneous. The respondent-management filed a detailed counter supporting the removal of the petitioner from service and ascertaining that the enquiry was properly conducted by giving opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case and there is any amount of evidence to show that the petitioner committed misconduct which is unpardonable. Therefore, the removal of the petitioner from service is just and proper. Apart from this, his past conduct was also not good. Before the Labour Court, nobody was examined nor was got marked any document on behalf of the petitioner. Except marking of Exs.M1 to M22, nobody was examined on behalf of the respondents. After considering the entire material on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management was just, proper and valid, the charges are grave in nature, the very conduct of the petitioner shows that he has committed misconduct as alleged by the respondents and T.T.Is. also spoke to the same effect, as such, the respondents have not committed any error in removing the petitioner from service, and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner had put in more than 14 years of service except with a few trivial charges framed, which are common to the Conductors during the course of service. The petitioner has never committed any grave misconduct nor was he involved in the present misconduct as alleged by the management. The petitioner, at the earliest point of time, gave the same explanation as he had reiterated in further course of enquiry. Even assuming that there is some negligence on the part of the petitioner in punching the tickets that is only trivial in nature, and the imposition of punishment of removal from service for such misconduct is shocking disproportionate to the proved misconduct alleged against him. Therefore, the Labour Court has not exercised its powers vested under Section 11(A) of the Act in right perspective while disposing of the matter. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has stated that neither the disciplinary authority nor the Labour Court has committed any error apparent on the face of the record calling for interference of this Court. I have given my earnest considerations to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. The charges leveled against the petitioner though appear to be serious in nature, but in substance, they are to the effect that the petitioner punched 9 tickets of four-rupee denominations at Stage No.3 and hid them, but when the T.T.Is. inspected the bus they found those tickets in the luggage carrier. Even assuming that the petitioner has explained his conduct to see that the nine cooli passengers, immediately after the tickets were punched, got down the bus for the reason that their master instructed them to go by a private van to Bhimavaram, he could not collect the money, but issued those tickets to them. According to the petitioner, he wanted to explain the same to the person attending duties, but since there was nobody available he could not bring it to the notice of the person concerned. Meanwhile, the checking officials came, and the petitioner explained to them what had really transpired, but the authorities did not accept his explanation, however the fact remains that the petitioner has not accounted for these nine tickets in the S.R. Had the authorities taken these facts into consideration, the innocence of the petitioner at least to some extent could have been proved. The S.R. also shows that these tickets were not entered and no money was collected. Had it been the case that the tickets were accounted for in the S.R and those tickets were found in possession of the petitioner, it could have been inferred that he wanted to re-issue the tickets in favour of other passengers at least. Under the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there seems to be some negligence on the part of the petitioner. Even if such misconduct, which is trivial in nature, is proved, it does not require removal of the petitioner from his services. The removal of the petitioner from services is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against him. Hence, I deem it appropriate to modify the award passed by the Labour Court as under: “The respondent-management shall reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without any back-wages and other attendant benefits, such as, seniority, increments etc. The services rendered by the petitioner between the date of his removal and that of reinstatement shall be counted only for the purpose of retirement benefits. With the above modification of the impugned award, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 9th February, 2011 bcj