THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18597 of 2001 Dated:- 03rd December, 2010 Between:- S.B.Nandam …Petitioner AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Siricilla and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18597 of 2001 ORDER:- No representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 21.07.2000 passed in I.D.No.82 of 1996 by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Godavarikhani, the petitioner therein is before this Court as petitioner and seeks to set aside the same. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 4. The petitioner was appointed as conductor in APSRTC on daily wages on 04.05.1988 and subsequently, his services were regularized on 26.10.1989. On 23.12.1992, while the petitioner was conducting the bus bearing No.7604 on Yellareddypet to Marrimandla route, the bus was checked and the checking officials found that the petitioner had issued ten tickets of Rs.3.75 ps. denomination to a batch of ten passengers, which tickets were already issued and accounted in the Statistical Returns in the earlier trip. Subsequently, charge-memo was issued, charge-sheet was issued on 04.01.1993, departmental enquiry was conducted and basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Court below. 5. The Court below, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and holding that the petitioner is not expected to issue invalid tickets to a batch of ten passengers and that the removal of service of the petitioner is in proportion to the charges proved, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 6. As seen from the grounds of the writ petition, the petitioner’s case is that his explanation was not taken into consideration and that he was suffering with fever at the time of the checking of the bus and that there was heavy rush in the bus and that he could not give proper reply at the time of spot explanation. It is also his case that the passengers were not produced before the Enquiry Officer and that there is no evidence to say that he had issued tickets before starting of the bus. It is his further case that the Court below failed to exercise powers under Section 11 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the tickets which were issued by the petitioner for ten passengers were already issued and accounted in the Statistical Returns and that the petitioner admitted the same while giving spot explanation and that the enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was given opportunity to putforth his case and that there is no irregularity in holding the enquiry. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment in case between Ramulu V. J. Vs. Labour Court, Anantapur[1] wherein, it was held “if that an employee is found guilty of commission of breach of trust, irrespective of the sum involved, normally, stringent punishment is called for.” Learned counsel had also relied upon the judgment in case between Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S.Hullikatti[2], wherein, it was held that “if it is proved that the conductor of a bus has collected charges higher than the fare knowing the correct fare to be charged, awarding of ordering of reinstatement with full back wages is not justified.” 8. As seen from the record and the recitals of the impugned order, it appears that the counsel for the petitioner appearing before the Court below seems to have argued that the petitioner had spent about Rs.60/- for purchasing medicines and he was in need of money and he wanted to make up the deficit. Even otherwise, the Court below has considered Ex.M.1 – Statistical Returns, Ex.M.2 – Passengers Statement, and Ex.M.3 – Spot explanation of the petitioner and basing on the same, the Court below gave its findings. Thus, the findings of the Court below appear to be based on record and do not need any interference by this Court. Where, in a case, if it is proved that an employee is guilty of commission of breach of trust, such employee, in my considered view, is not entitled for any lenient view. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the Court below was right in not exercising its discretionary powers under Section 11 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the petitioner is not entitled for such a relief. 9. In view of the above, I hold that the award passed by the Court below is just and reasonable and do not suffer from any infirmities so as to call interference of this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 03rd December, 2010 Bvv [1] 2001 LLR 838 [2] (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 574