THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.18558 OF 2004 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is the workmen, who worked as Conductor in the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. Aggrieved by the award dated 3.4.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.51/2001, in confirming the order of removal passed by the respondent – corporation, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner was working as conductor in the Dharmavaram depot of the respondent – corporation. While so, on 23.1.1998 while he was conducting on the bus bearing no. AP 10Z 1513 at 11-20 hours on the route Kurnool to Dharmavaram, a cheque was conducted at stage no.14/13 and cash and ticket irregularities were found and after recording the statement of passengers in the presence of workmen, he was served with a memo on the spot and thereafter, he was issued with charge sheet dated 17.2.1998, with the following charges: 1. For having reissued the ticket Nos.004/493160 to 166 of Rs.15-50 denm. (E.7) and 519/986765 to 777 of Rs.0-50 ps., denm. to 13 individual passengers (along with ticket nos.004/493167 to 172 of Rs.15-50 denm.) who boarded your bus at Kurnool and bound for Dhone. Ex.St.14 to 11 which were already shown to have been issued at stage No.11 on the up journey in the same service Sr.No.A4/5304868 duly altering the ticket nos. of Rs.15-00 denm., as ‘160’ and 0-50 ps., denm. as 766 in the SR and thereby admitted to have specifically issued the ticket no.519/986765 of Rs.0-50 ps., at stage no.11 itself in the up journey by closing the ticket no.766 of Rs.0-50 ps. denm. against stage no.11 in up journey which constitutes misconduct as per Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having altered the ticket nos.(1) 167 as 160 of Rs.15-50 and (2) 777 as 766 of Rs.0-50 denm. in the ST No.A4/5304868 and also altered the number of issues of Rs.15-50 denm. and 0-50 denm. stage no.11 (Dhone) in the up journey while conducting AP 10Z. 1513 on the route Dharmavaram to Kurnool, which was noticed by the checking officials at the time of check in the down journey which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having failed to check up the way bill no.0122/32398015 and hand try at the time of receiving before starting for duty resulted variation in key nos. of ticket blocks (i.e.,) actual ticket blocks of Rs.3-00 denm., were available 064/655800, 064/655900 against the ticket blocks mentioned in the way bill as 695/655800 and 695/655900 which speaks your gross negligence on duty which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”. 4. To the above charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges and subsequently, as per the directions of the respondent to Chief Inspector of the respondent – Depot, the previous S.Rs. pertaining to the petitioner for the period from 1.12.1997 to 31.1.1998, were verified and certain irregularities were detected and based on the same, the petitioner was issued second charge dated 28.3.1998 with the following charges: 1. For having reissued the ticket bearing no.156/2172589 of Rs.8/- denm in the down trip Anantapur – Dharmavaram which was already issued in 05-30 hrs. up trip as per S.R.No.A4/5398306 while conducting 5-30 hrs. DVRM-ATP service on 4.12.1997, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having reissued 2 tickets bearing no.156/217265 and 266 of Rs.8-00 denm. in the down trip which were already issued in 12- 00 hrs. up trip as per ST.No.A4/5398480 on 5-12-97 which constitutes misconduct under Regulations 28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having reissued two tickets bearing nos.374/954558 and 559 of Rs.5-00 denm. in the down trip which were already issued in 17- 15 hrs. up trip from SKU to ATP as per SR No.A4/5312290 while conducing 14-15 hrs. DVRM – ATP service on 12-12-97 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having reissued the ticket bearing no.157/217310 of Rs.8-00 denm. In the down trip which was already issued in 8-30 hrs. up trip at BTP as per SR.No.A4/5312653 while conducting 0-50 hrs. DVRM/ATP service on 16-12-97 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 5. For having reissued 2 tickets bearing nos.157/217320 and 321 of Rs.8/- denm. In 13-30 hrs. down trip which were already issued in the up trip at stage no.2 DTP as per SR.No.A4/5312830 while conducting 12-00 hrs. DVRM/ATP service on 17-12-97 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 6. For having misused the ticket bearing no.684/294396 of Rs.10/- denm. In the down trip which was already issued in the up trip at stage no.1 as per SR.No.A4/5311398 while conducting 11-30 hrs. DVRM-ATP service on 22-12-97 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 7. For having reissued two tickets bearing nos.686/120725 and 726 of Rs.10/- denm. In the last down trip which were already issued in 8-30 hrs. up trip as per SR.No.A4/5311457 while conducting 0-50 hrs. DVRM/ATP service on 23-12-97 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 8. For having reissued (a) 3 tickets bearing nos.159/2137110 to 159/2137112 of Rs.8/- denm. in the down trip of 13-45 hrs. which were already issued in the 12-15 hrs. up trip, (b) and reissued tickets bearing no.016/723036 of Rs.10/- denm., in the up tip which was alredy issued in 16-05 hrs. down trip as per Sr.No.A4/5363183 while conducting 12-15 hrs., DVRM-ATP service on 7-1-98 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 9. For having reissued two(2) tickets bearing no.016/728373 and 374 of Rs.10/- denm in the down tip which were already issued in 15- 00 hrs. up trip from DVRM-ATP as per ST.NO. A4/5363763 while conducting 12-00 hrs., DVRM-ATP service on 12-1-98 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 10. For having reissued the tickets bearing nos.693/617035 and 036 OF Rs.10/- denm in the down trip which were already issued in 9-30 hrs. up trip from DVRM.ATP as per SR.No.A4/5304191 while conducting 06-30 hrs. DVRM-ATP Service on 17-1-98 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 11. For having reissued ticket bearing no.694/616198 of Rs.10/- denm in the up trip which were alredyissued in 7-30 hrs. down trip from Anantapur toDharmavaram as per Sr.No.A4/5304540 while conducting 6-00 hrs. DVRM-ATP service on 20-1-98 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 5. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the above charges and an enquiry officer was appointed and he submitted report holding the petitioner guilty of the above charges and the petitioner was served with the report of the enquiry and he submitted his explanation and not being satisfied with the same, the impugned orders of removal was passed, challenging the same, the petitioner raised I.D. before the Tribunal and on considering the material on record, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the 1st charge sheet are based on record in the absence of original S.R.? 2. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the 2nd charge sheet are based on record? 3. Whether the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct? 4. To what relief? 6. Appreciating the entire evidence, the Tribunal found that charges nos.1 and 2 in the first charge sheet dated 17.2.1998, in the absence of original S.R., are not based on record and with regard to charge no.3, in the first charge sheet, it was held that petitioner was negligent and held that the findings on charge no.3 are based on record. Coming to charges in the second charge sheet dated 28.3.1998, the Tribunal found that the petitioner indulged in re-issue of tickets and defrauded the revenue to the Corporation and thus held that the findings of the enquiry officer, holding the petitioner guilty, are based on evidence. With regard to quantum of punishment, the Tribunal having found that the petitioner indulged in defrauding of the revenue to the Corporation and involved in corrupt practices, found that it is not a fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly dismissed the petition by confirming the order of removal passed by the respondent – Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that with regard to first charge sheet, the original S.R. was found missing and hence the charges 1 and 2 in the said charge sheet were rightly held to be not proved by the Tribunal and therefore, his contention is that the 3rd charge in the said charge sheet also ought to have to been held as not proved, since first two charges are not proved and moreover there is no revenue loss to the Corporation and in view of the same, the findings of the Tribunal that the petitioner is also negligent, is without any basis and the same is liable to be set aside. With regard to second charge sheet, he contended that the verification of the cash as per the statistical returns (S.Rs). has to take place within one week in cases of suspected fraudulent intention to defraud the revenue of the Corporation as per the circular in P.D.No.49/95 dated 24.71995. In the present case, the second charge sheet is based on the verification of S.R.s. after one week and hence the charge sheet cannot be sustained, as the same is contrary to the circular dated 24.7.1995. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not have found the petitioner guilty of the second charge sheet. With these contentions, he sought to set aside the impugned award and direct the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation supporting the impugned award contended that no doubt as per the circular, the scrutiny of S.Rs. should normally be done within one week, but in the present case, since the checking officials having found that the claimant altered the S.Rs., entertained a doubt and in such a circumstance, the previous S.Rs. of the claimant were verified, so in the light of the present circumstances, the petitioner cannot take shelter that the S.Rs. cannot be verified after a period of one week. With this submission, she sought to dismiss the writ petition and confirm the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for my consideration is whether the impugned award of the Tribunal warrants any interference? 10. The charges against the petitioner under first charge sheet dated 17.2.1998 pertain to reissue of tickets of different denominations by altering the S.R. But from the material on record, it is clear that the relevant statistical return i.e., S.R. in original, was not produced by the respondent – Corporation before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, in the absence of original S.R., it cannot be concluded that the petitioner made alterations. Considering this factor, the Tribunal rightly held that mere allegations that the petitioner has made alternations, is not sufficient and it cannot be said that it is conclusive proof of the charge and therefore rightly set aside the findings of the enquiry officer on charges 1 and 2 of first charge sheet. Coming to the third charge with regard to the failure on the part of the petitioner in checking up the way bill no.0122/32398015 and hand tray at the time of receiving, before starting for duty is concerned, it is admitted that the petitioner has not verified the way bill and hand tray at the time of receiving the hand tray and failed to verify the key numbers of the ticket blocks. It is also further not in dispute that Rs.3/- denomination ticket block mentioned in the way bill are 695/655800 and 695/665900 and whereas the denomination blocks available in the hand try are 604/655800 to 604/655900. This has happened because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner in verifying the way bill and hand tray. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly found the petitioner guilty for negligence of duty on his party and though there is no finding with regard to any revenue loss under this charge, the negligence is apparent from the facts and circumstances. Hence, I do not find any justification in interfering with the findings of the Tribunal on this charge. 11. The other charge sheet against the petitioner is dated 28.3.1998 and there are altogether eleven charges under this charge sheet and they all relate to re- issue of tickets which were already issued. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner indulged in re-issue of tickets and thereby defrauded the revenue to the Corporation and the Tribunal also by re-appreciating the entire evidence found that finding of the enquiry officer is based on evidence. 12. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that issuance of second charge sheet itself is bad and contrary to the circular dated 24.7.1995, which contemplates checking of S.Rs within a week from the date of submission and the circular is the result of the agreement between the workmen and the management and the same is binding on the management. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in SUDHIR CHANDRA SARKAR v. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD[1] and WORKMEN v HINDUSTANLEVER LTD.[2] 13. From the material on record it could be seen that the Checking Officials entertained a doubt with regard to alternation of S.Rs. by the petitioner and in that regard have undertaken verification for the period pertaining to 1.12.1997 to 31.1.1998 and detected certain cash and ticket irregularities by altering the S.Rs. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot take shelter under the circular dated 24.7.1995 and furthermore the circular contemplates checking within a week of sustained irregularities, but it doesn’t specifically prohibit checking after the prescribed period when irregularities were detected. Further, fraud vitiates everything. In the enquiry, all the charges were found proved. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the second charge sheet cannot be issued to the petitioner. In the present facts and circumstances, the judgment of the Apex Court cannot be made applicable. 14. The petitioner indulged in cash and ticket irregularities by altering the S.Rs. This is a serious offence under Regulation 28 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and the he is found to have defrauded the revenue of the corporation and thus involved in corrupt practices. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly refrained from exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------ 08—02—2011 [1] (1984)3 SCC 369 [2] (1984)1 SCC 728