THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 21151 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.287 of 2001 dated 10.01.2007 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur whereunder the petition filed under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) seeking to set aside the order of removal and further reliefs was dismissed in toto. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as conductor in the service of the A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1985. While that being so, since the petitioner failed to produce bus passes, receipts and issues and the stock register for the years 1995 and 1997 for audit verification on 02.01.1999, he was issued charge sheet enumerating the following charges: “1) For having remitted the bus cash realized through the sale of student bus passes only as per the Way Bills without tallying the same with MTD 531 statement to detect any omissions and this gives scope for non-furnishing of certain passes in the Way bills which can be sold out unauthorisedly without remitting sale proceeds to the corporation, which constitutes misconduct vide Reg.No.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2) For having shown in the way bill No.4389217 dt. 7.10.97 as having taken 3 blocks of Rs.100/- denomination only i.e., nos. 07700, 07750 and 07850 and block No.07800 was not shown by you in the way bill and thus shown unserial blocks in the way bill which gave scope to you for selling the block No.07800 unauthorisedly and to take the legitimate revenues of the corporation which constitutes misconduct vide Reg.No. 9(1)(2)(iv) of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations,1967. 3) For having shown in MTD 531 statement dt. 6.11.97 the passes No.47250 to 47282 of Rs.100/- denomination. As having been sold out during your duty in the bus pass counter for which no receipts and issues particulars could be produced to the audit inspector and as such reported by him as missed block which constitutes misconduct vide Reg. No. 28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations,1963. 4) For having shown the passes bearing No.31156 to 31197 of Rs.75/- denomination in the MTD 531 statement dt.7.11.97 which was prepared in your counter as having been sold out by you, when no receipt and issues particulars could be shown from the depot tickets section which constitutes misconduct vide Reg.No. 9(1) Note 2 (iii) of APSRTC Employees (CC &A) Regulations, 1967. 5) For having shown the closing No.Rs.100/- denomination Bus pass as 47164 in the way bill 389222, dt. 6.11.97 whereas in MTD 531 statement dt. 6.11.97 the block was shown as having been sold out from 47150 to 47160 only which constitutes misconduct vide Reg.28(ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations,1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations made against him. Having not satisfied with the explanation, the respondent/corporation ordered for domestic enquiry and accordingly, domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. For which, the petitioner submitted his reply. After considering the objections and the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved and as such issued a show cause notice proposing the punishment of removal from service. However, the petitioner did not submit his explanation for the same and thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 30.06.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal and the review petitions, but both were dismissed. Having left no other option, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Act. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properly conducted and no proper opportunity was given to him and the documents asked for by him for the purpose of effective defence were also not furnished. The charges are as vague as they could be and that even if they are proved, they are trivial in nature and the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Therefore, the removal order passed by the respondent/corporation as confirmed by the appellate authority and reviewing authority is liable to be set aside. Respondent/corporation filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and further stating that the charges are very grave in nature. All the necessary documents were supplied to the petitioner and only irrelevant documents were not supplied, since they are not necessary. Though the petitioner was given opportunity, he did not utilise the same properly and the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and the disciplinary authority has not committed any error in removing the petitioner from service. Before the Labour Court no oral evidence was let in on either side and no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner/workman. On behalf of the respondent/corporation Exs. M1 to M74 were marked. After elaborate consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management was valid and the charges were proved in full, therefore, no interference can be made by it and as such dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of sale of student bus passes for five days i.e., from 5th to 10th day of every month. In the remaining days of the month, he used to attend to his usual duty of conductor. For selling student bus pass tickets, the respondent/corporation used to allot three conductors and one T.I. besides the petitioner to discharge the work. Thus in all five persons were involved in selling student bus pass tickets. The part of the work to be discharged by the petitioner is to obtain tickets and way bills from the Depot clerk and after selling the tickets, he has to remit the cash as per sale of tickets shown in the way bill by duly entering the closing ticket numbers of all denominations. The other conductors used to write MTD 531 statements whereas the T.I. will sign the tickets. Therefore, absolutely there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in attending to his duties. Apart from that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer, Regional Manager and the respondent/corporation to furnish him the copies of relevant documents. The enquiry Officer and the Regional Manager failed to consider his request for supply of documents and without giving fair and reasonable opportunity, no misconduct can be attributed against the petitioner. Even if the charges are proved, they are trivial in nature and even if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the ultimate punishment of removal from service is unwarranted in the given circumstances of the case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/corporation supported the award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner are very grave in nature. May be more than one person is involved in the transaction but that itself does not mean that the petitioner is not guilty of the charges. The evidence let in would show that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and since the charges are grave in nature, there could not be any other punishment except removal from service and no interference can be made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner had put in more than 15 years of service as on the date of removal from service. The petitioner as a conductor suffered minor punishments of deferment of increments for four times and he was censured twice. Otherwise, his whole career is free from blame. Admittedly, the petitioner is also part and parcel of the misconduct unearthed by the respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is not involved in the misconduct. May be the documents as asked for were not furnished. But in what way those documents are useful to the petitioner is not properly explained. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges cannot be interfered with by this court. However, as the petitioner has clean conduct for about 15 years prior to the date of removal, the same should have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while exercising its discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Act. Had that been taken into consideration, probably the petitioner could have been granted some relief. In the over all circumstances, I am of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate with that of the misconduct alleged. In the result, the award passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the respondent/management is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages and other attendant benefits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. C.V.RAMULU,J Dt. 18.02.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 21151 of 2007 Dt. 18.02.2011