THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.459 of 2010 Dated:21.06.2010 Between: The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam, And others. ...Appellants And Mr.Babu Rao, And another. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.459 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Visakhapatnam, and other Officials of the Corporation are in appeal against the order, dated 07.04.2010, in W.P.No.3094 of 2005 passed by the learned single Judge. The brief fact of the matter which is not seriously disputed is as follows. The first respondent was appointed as Conductor in APSRTC more than a decade ago. On 07.01.2001 the checking staff conducted a surprise check when the first respondent was conducting the bus on route No.541. For alleged cash irregularities enquiry was initiated based on the report of the checking Officials. Three charges were framed, namely, that the first respondent failed to observe the rule of ‘issue and start’, that he failed to issue the remaining amount of Rs.2/- though he collected Rs.20/- from six passengers, and that first respondent failed to close the SR of all denominations up to stage No.7. The Enquiry Officer found the first respondent guilty of all charges. The disciplinary authority by an order dated 27.03.2001 ordered removal of the workman. Aggrieved by the same, he raised Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). The same, being I.D.No.86 of 2002, was dismissed, aggrieved by which, writ petition was filed. Learned single Judge did not find fault with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer or Industrial Tribunal. However, exercising discretion under Section 11A of the Act, learned Judge thought it fit to order reinstatement of the first respondent to his Office with continuity of service but without back wages. In this Writ Appeal learned Standing Counsel relies on Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Company Limited v State of West Bengal[1] in support of his submission that whatever be the small amount which is subject matter of an enquiry into cash irregularities, it leads to an inference that workman is dishonest and such workmen are not to be reinstated. After perusing the decision, we are not able to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the APSRTC. The learned single Judge observed as follows. Though there are certain past misconducts attributed against the petitioner, which cannot be denied, the petitioner was never removed from service earlier, but some punishment of censure and stoppage of increments were imposed against him, which are very common in the service of a conductor. Admittedly, the bus was overloaded with 85 passengers and some drunken passengers in the bus created nuisance, and, therefore, the petitioner could not issue the tickets properly. But, these facts were not believed by the Labour Court and it confirmed the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner, holding that there is no flaw in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the workman. This is not a case of re-issue of tickets or a case where the petitioner was removed from service on earlier occasions also for the same misconduct committed by him in the present case, but this is purely a case of the petitioner not issuing tickets to a batch of six passengers, who boarded the bus at stage No.5 and were about to alight at stage No.7, and before the bus reached stage No.7, a check was exercised by the checking officials. Thus, I am of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved and the Labour Court, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act, could have reduced the punishment of removal from service. Therefore, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned award. We are in full agreement with the reasoning of the learned single Judge. Further, the important charge, which is charge No.2, is to the effect that workman collected Rs.20/- from six passengers towards the ticket of Rs.3/- each but failed to issue remaining amount of Rs.2/- at the boarding point itself. This would not certainly lead to an inference that there was dishonest intention to retain Rs.2/- especially when the finding was that when bus was checked by the officials it was overcrowded with 85 passengers. In the peculiar facts of the case, learned single Judge exercised discretion under Section 11A of the Act, which does not in our opinion warrant any interference. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _______________________ (VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J) 21.06.2010 vs [1] 2002 (1) LLJ 224 Cal