IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19534 of 1999 Between: M.Krishnaji. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, retpd., by its Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva. Counsel for respondents : Sri K.Madhava Reddy for R.3 and R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 26-4-1999 passed in I.D.No.99 of 1998 and order dated 10-9-1986 passed by respondent No.3. Heard Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner was a conductor of APSRTC. On the basis of a check administered while he was conducting bus bearing No.APZ 8925 on route Sadasivapeta-Vikarabad on 8-3-1986, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. A charge sheet was issued with the following charges: “1. For having violated the rule ‘ISSUE & START’ without any reasonable cause. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to nine passengers (individuals and batches) found traveling without tickets from Sadasivapet to Mekavonampalli (Ex-stages 16 to 15, even after collecting the requisite fare”. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed and on considering the enquiry report, a show cause notice for removal was issued on 1-8-1986 to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11-8-1986. By order dated 10-9-1986 the petitioner was removed by respondent No.3. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.4 by his order dated 12-12-1987. Almost seven years later, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 held that the enquiry held by the domestic Tribunal was valid. The Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence on record, concurred with the finding of the disciplinary and appellate authorities about the guilt of the petitioner. The Tribunal also considered the past conduct of the petitioner in holding that the penalty of removal from service is not disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition questioning the above said orders. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced the only contention viz., that the penalty of removal of the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of offence. Respondent No.2 considered this aspect in its award and it is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion hereunder: “That leaves the only question of quantum of punishment. The service record of the petitioner reveal startling facts. He was appointed on 3-7-1972 and within 5 days Rs.100/- of security deposit was forfeited, he was warned severely on 25-11-1972 for issuing lower denomination tickets even after collecting higher fares. Like that he was also subsequently warned twice in the same year of appointment and by December, 1972 an amount of Rs.50/- from this security was again forfeited. The next year is not different in any way as he was severely warned on 17-2-1973 and 19-2-1973, 24-2- 1973 which is on two counts. Again he was warned on 17-3-1973 and on 2-5-1973 his security deposit was again forfeited. The process of warnings seems to have never abated during 1973. Apart from the numerous warning, his increment was deferred for 12 months on 14-8-1973 followed by numerous warnings until November, 1973 when he was suspended. In 1974 also his deposit of Rs.200/- was forfeited and the suspension period was not treated as duty followed by a severe warning for ticket irregularities and on 3-7-1974 he was again suspended and on 17- 9-1974 he was removed. It appears that he was reinstated as a fresh conductor which was also not free from frequent severe warnings. And on 9-5-1975 one increment was deferred with cumulative effect. This is the day on which he was double punished. Again he was suspended on 10-6-1975 followed by a severe warning and on 29-8-1975 he was removed from service and it appears that he was reinstated into service on appeal. Again he was placed under suspension and removed from service on 10-9-1986. All these punishments are for ticketing irregularities. The Management appears to have tested its patience for too long. The timing of the punishments clinches that the petitioner has become habitual in committing irregularities. The present irregularity under which he was removed is a clear case that he has become habitual in misappropriating the revenues of the management”. The hoary past of the petitioner does not entitle him to plead for any mercy whatsoever. His history, which is indeed shameful, does not entitle him to even raise the contention that the punishment of removal is disproportionate, much less shockingly disproportionate, to the proven misconduct. The petitioner has not disputed any of the past instances proving his utter lack of integrity and honesty. Such a person cannot be allowed to be employed in a public utility Corporation, such as APSRTC. I do not, therefore, find any reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the orders impugned in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:30-12-2008 MNR