IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. : 22563 of 1999 Between: APSRTC , Rep.by it's Depot Manager, Medhipatnam Depot, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri G.Mohan, S/o. Sri G.Narasimha, R/o. H.No.18-2-355, Jangampet, Falakuma, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in I.D.No.63/1998 dt.15.3.99 published in G.O.Rt.No.840 dt.5.5.1999 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and quash the order and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), through its Depot Manager, Mehdipatnam Depot, challenging the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, dated 15th March 1999, passed in I.D.No.63 of 1998. 2. The respondent herein was the Conductor working in the petitioner-Corporation, attached to the Mehdipatnam Depot. On 28th December 1996, while he was conducting the bus on the route from Charminar to Mohammad Lane, the checking oﬃcials have exercised a check, and having noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities, charges were framed against the respondent, which read as under : “1. For having failed to complete the ticket issues within a fare stage while conducting vehicle No.290 on 28-12-1996 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC, Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to four individual passengers found alighting without tickets at Mehdipatnam X Roads, and traveled from S.R.Bagh ex-stages 5 to 6 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of ﬁve passengers found alighting without tickets at Mehdipatnam X Roads stage No.6 and traveled from Sitharambagh stage No.5 even after collecting the requisite fare at their boarding point itself which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” The respondent has ﬁled his explanation to the above charges. But, however, dissatisﬁed with the same, disciplinary authority has appointed an inquiry oﬃcer to conduct inquiry into the charges framed against the respondent. The inquiry oﬃcer, after conducting inquiry, has submitted his report by recording a ﬁnding that all the charges levelled against the respondent- workman are proved. In view of the said ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer, the disciplinary authority, after issuing show cause notice and receiving explanation from the delinquent-employee, has passed orders of removal through order, dated 09.05.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-workman has ﬁled an appeal before the Divisional Manager, but his appeal was rejected by the appellate authority by an order, dated 4 th August 1997, which was further conﬁrmed by the review authority by its order, dated 12.03.1998. Aggrieved by the order of removal, as conﬁrmed by the appellate and review authorities, the respondent-workman has raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.63 of 1998, by ﬁling an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Labour Court, mainly recording a ﬁnding that the check was conducted by the inspecting oﬃcials within the one fare stage after ticket issuing point, has set aside the order of removal and ordered for reinstatement of respondent into service by giving the beneﬁt of continuity of service, attendant beneﬁts and full backwages. 3. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation that though well-reasoned ﬁndings were recorded in the domestic inquiry proceedings based on the suﬃcient material available on record in proof of the charges levelled against the respondent-workman, but inspite of the same, the Industrial Tribunal, without recording any valid reasons, has interfered with the said ﬁndings. It is submitted by him that in any event, the Tribunal ought not have awarded full backwages to the workman. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman that as much as the inquiry oﬃcer has not appreciated the evidence on record before recording his ﬁndings in the domestic inquiry proceedings, the Tribunal has looked into the evidence and recorded its ﬁndings that the charges levelled against the respondent are not proved. He submits that it is always open for the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to a diﬀerent conclusion. 4. With reference to the above arguments, it is to be mainly noticed that in the route where the respondent-workman was conducting the service, stage No.5 was Seetharambagh and stage No.6 is Mehdipatnam X Roads. With reference to ticket and cash irregularities, the main charges are charge Nos.2 and 3. In charge No.2, it is alleged that the respondent-workman has failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to four individual passengers, who boarded the bus at stage No.5 and were found alighting at stage No.6 without tickets. Another charge is that the respondent-workman has failed to issue tickets to a batch of ﬁve passengers, after collecting fare from them. They were also travelling from stage No.5 Seetharambagh and were found alighting the bus at stage No.6. 5. In the inquiry proceedings, it is the defence of the workman that the check was exercised within one fare stage before reaching Mehdipatnam X Roads. The Industrial Tribunal, while re-appreciating the evidence on record, found from Ex.M-4 that there are about 60 passengers in the bus. Further, as a fact, it was also found by the Tribunal that the S.R. was also not closed upto stage No.6. In view of the defence put-forth by the workman and in view of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has found that the check was exercised before one fare stage after ticket issuing point. Mainly on the ground that as much as the check was exercised before the alighting stage at stage No.6, coupled with the fact that S.R. was not closed upto stage No.6, giving the beneﬁt of doubt, it was held that the charges levelled against the respondent-workman are not proved. It is well settled that it is always open for the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence on record and examine the correctness of the ﬁndings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the ﬁndings recorded are either perverse or illegal, warranting interference at this stage. It is further stated that pursuant to the orders of reinstatement passed in the impugned award, dated 15.03.1999, the workman was reinstated immediately and for the last about nine years, he is being continued in service during the pendency of this writ petition. 6. Coming to the further question whether the respondent-workman be awarded full backwages, it is to be noticed that though the charges levelled against him are grave and serious in nature, but however, as it was held by the Tribunal that the said charges were not proved for want of suﬃcient evidence, the services of respondent-workman cannot be dispensed with by way of removal. But at the same time, it cannot be said that the charges framed are either frivolous or they are framed as a measure of victimization. The respondent was removed from service on 09.05.1997 and he was ordered to be reinstated by the impugned award, dated 15th March 1999 i.e. nearly after two years of removal. In usual course, to examine the question whether the respondent-workman is to be awarded full backwages or not, the matter has to be remitted back, but however, taking into consideration the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent-workman in the year 1997 and this writ petition is pending before this Court for the last about nine years, and further, taking into account the fact that the respondent was out of service for about two years, to put a quietus to the litigation, I deem it appropriate to modify the award passed by the Tribunal by awarding backwages only to the extent of 50%. It is submitted that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, entire backwages are deposited and the respondent-workman was already permitted to withdraw 25% of the backwages. In view of the aforesaid ﬁndings that the respondent-workman is entitled to 50% of backwages, he is entitled to withdraw further 25% of the backwages deposited, and the remaining 50% of backwages are to be returned to the Corporation. In all other respects, the impugned Award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 7. The writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th November 2008 ajr