IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22515 of 2007 Between: M. Yadagiri (E. No. 93473), S/o Narsaiah C/o M. Mahadeva Sastry, H.no. 5-32, Durgangar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Narayankhed Depot, Medak District. 2 The Labour Court-II, Hyderaad, repbyits PresidingOfficer .....RESPONDENT(S 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 or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari: i. Calling for records relating to the impugned order dt 17-3-1998 made in ID No. 105/93, the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad Published on 7-4-1998 in G.O.Rt. No. 685, dismissing the claim petition and quash the same as bad, illegal, arbitrary ii. Consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with consequential benefits. iii. 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.VASUDEVA REDDY Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1: Smt.B.G.Uma Devi Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the APSRTC on 04.06.1980. On 06.09.1989, he conducted a bus from Narayankhed to Hyderbad. After he reached the destination, the checking Officers inspected the statistical report as well as the cash bag of the petitioner. It was found that three tickets of denomination of Rs.10/-, issued for stage Nos.11 to 21, were found in the bag. A report was submitted and three charges were framed by the Appointing Authority. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Departmental enquiry was conducted and through order, dated 31.07.1990, he was removed from service by the Appointing Authority. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. Hence, he approached the Labour Court II, Hyderabad, by filing I.D.No.105 of 1993. The I.D., was dismissed vide award, dated 17.03.1998. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Labour Court itself found that nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioner and that he can be said to have resorted to acts of misconduct, if only the tickets were issued to passengers. He contends that the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court do not accord with the discussion undertaken by it. Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner entertained a clear idea to defraud the Corporation by issuing the used tickets to other passengers. She submits that the past record of the petitioner provides a clear indication about his intention and that no interference with the award is warranted. Normally, the check of buses takes place during the course of journey. In the instant case, the check took place after the bus reached the destination. It was noticed that three tickets of denomination of Rs.10/- were found loose in the cash bag of the petitioner. Corresponding alteration in the statistical report was also noticed. In the report, it was mentioned that the petitioner wrongly issued those three tickets to some passengers on the route and on realizing that they ought not have been issued, he took them back and made necessary corrections in the entries. His explanation was also on the same lines. The charges against the petitioner read as under: i) “For having found punched tickets in your cash bag bearing No.112/487396 to 398 of Rs.10/-deno. ii) For having altered the tray numbers of Rs.10/- deno from stage No.1 to 21 as 396 in the SR bearing 126/9647 dt.6-9-89. iii) For having altered the particular deno, tickets of Rs.10/- which were found in your cash bag which arises doubt of reissue in down journey which may cause financial loss to the Corporation.” The Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved and the disciplinary authority accepted the report. It is necessary to refer to the observations made by the Labour Court about the misconduct of the petitioner, while examining the legality of the order of removal. The relevant paragraphs read as under: “Until and unless the tickets which were preserved in the cash bag were used, by presuming the desire of the petitioner for the future by use of such tickets he cannot be penalized. So under the charge No.3 the petitioner cannot be penalized. Similarly for keeping the punched and aged tickets in the cash bag, unless they are utilized for defrauding the organization the petitioner cannot be penalized under charge No.1 by altering theRs.10/- deno. Tickets tray numbers from 399 to 396 the petitioner not only pocketed Rs.30/- on the said trip and in the future next trip he was bound to issue those three tickets to show the continuity of tickets in seriatim and there by he was sure to commit another misconduct for pocketing Rs.30/- more for the said tickets under numbers 396, 397 and 398. By simply altering the ticket tray number of Rs.10/- deno. tickets as if it was a mistake the petitioner in such an intelligent way cheated the organization which has no parallel in the recent past at least so far as the pending IDs. in this Court. So it is crystal clear that petitioner is guilty under charge No.2 which attracts the penalty under Reg.28(x) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. As already discussed above a person like the petitioner if allowed to continue in service it may not be a surprise in future the organization is closed for the loss of revenues. So the misconduct attracts the penalty of removal from service.” From a perusal of the same, it is evident that even the Labour Court was satisfied that the petitioner did not resort to the acts of misconduct. It was mostly impressed about the intention on the part of the petitioner in preserving the tickets. Howsoever grave an intention entertained by an employee, or an individual, may be, the legal consequences would follow, if only the intention was translated into action. The finding of the Labour Court is that the intention was not translated into action. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the award suffers from perversity in law. In the ordinary course, the conclusion arrived at by this Court, indicated above, must lead to setting aside the order of removal and reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all benefits. However, if one examines the past conduct of the petitioner, a negative picture emerges. He was censured 12 times. He was punished on 19 occasions in the form of deferment of increments. He was suspended 4 times and on one occasion he was removed from service. He was reinstated into service on the basis of an award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.218 of 1997. This background must, in fact, entail in dismissal of the writ petition. However, having regard to the fact that the accusation of the petitioner was not clearly proved, this Court intends to strike a balance, between the two extreme situations. It is no longer safe to permit the petitioner to act as a conductor or to discharge any duties, which involve handling of cash. The past benefits also cannot be extended and he must be reinstated into service as a fresh candidate. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside the award of the Labour Court, dated 17.03.1998, as well as the order of removal, dated 31.07.1990, passed against the petitioner, and directing his reinstatement into any post equivalent to that of a conductor in the minimum of the scale for that post, as afresh candidate and without any benefit of back wages, or continuity of service for any purpose whatever. He shall be entrusted duties other than that of a conductor or any duties, which do not involve handling of cash. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.10.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ