THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.1359 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioners herein are the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) represented by its Managing Director at Hyderabad and the Depot Manager of the APSRTC of its Devarakonda depot in Nalgonda District. They filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the award dated 30.03.2001 passed I.D.No.243/1998 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, and for restoring the punishment of removal from service awarded to the first respondent herein in the departmental enquiry. 2. At the relevant time, the first respondent herein was working as Conductor in the Devarakonda depot of APSRTC. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against the first respondent on the following three charges. 1.“For having violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’ while conducting the bus No.AEZ.658 on route Buggathanda to Devarakonda on 14-09-1007, which constitutes misconduct in terms of REg.28(xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”. 2.“For having failed to collect the requisite fare of Rs.2.50 and issue ticket to 6 individual passengers who boarded the bus at Buggathanda, stage No.8 and alighting at Peddamunigal, stage No.7 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi) (a) of of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”. 3.“For having failed to close the tray numbers of all denominations in the SR No.A4/3801820, dt.14-09- 1997 against stage No.7 which constitutes misconduct in terms of REg.28(xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”. 3. All the facts and the allegations which gave rise to the above three charges against the petitioner are mentioned in detail in the Award of Labour Court. It would be sufficient to note that on 14- 09-1997 when the first respondent was the Conductor of the APSRTC bus plying between Bugga Thanda and Devarakonda a check was conducted by the concerned officials of the APSRTC and the three irregularities which have been set out in the form of the above three charges were noticed by the said officials and consequently the departmental enquiry was held against the first respondent resulting in his removal from service by an order dated 28.02.1998 by the concerned disciplinary authority. Questioning the same the first respondent raised the present industrial dispute before the Labour Court. 4. The Labour Court after considering the matter by the impugned award concluded that the punishment of removal was highly disproportionate to the misconduct reflected by the charges and in that view of the matter it has set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of the first respondent into service with continuity of service with fifty percent of back wages while granting the other attendant benefits which would accrue by reason of the continuity of service. The petitioners are challenging this award. 5. The argument of the learned Standing Counsel for petitioners is that the irregularities set out in the three charges are of serious nature and the first respondent came up with discrepant explanations which would themselves show gross misconduct on the part of the first respondent and that the Labour Court was not correct in interfering with the punishment awarded in the disciplinary enquiry. Another point raised is that without pursuing the remedies of appeal and revision under the APSRTC Service Regulations, the 1st respondent approached the labour Court and the award is liable to be set aside on that ground also. 6. It may be noted that charges 1, 2 and 3 framed against the 1st respondent in the Departmental Enquiry have already been set out supra. All the three charges pertain to negligence or dereliction of duty, but they do not involve any corruption. The Labour Court considered this aspect and concluded that going by the statements of passengers in which they admitted their fault the 1st respondent cannot be held guilty of the 2nd charge. So far as charge No.1 is concerned which pertains to rule of violation of issue and start it only shows negligence as held by the Labour Court. Even with regard to charge No.3 relating to not closing the tray numbers of all the tickets the Labour Court found that it was not a wilful lapse having regard to the high number of passengers travelling in the bus. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners pointed that the 1st respondent/Conductor deliberately committed the lapses of not issuing tickets to six passengers and not closing the ticket tray numbers only with a view to commit acts of misappropriation and he would have committed the said acts if the check in question of the bus had not taken place. It may be noted that if this contention of the APSRTC is accepted, it would be doing so only on imaginary basis as no one can be punished for an act on the assumption that he would have committed the same if some hindrance had not occurred. 8. The Labour Court discussed all the aspects on evidence and concluded that the three charges against the 1st respondent would only show lapses were not wilful. It has discussed the evidence on record in reaching the conclusion. It then proceeded to hold that having regard to the facts and circumstances, the punishment of removal is a disproportionate one and in that view of the matter it directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent with 50% back wages and with other benefits. A perusal of the award, to repeat, would show that the Labour Court recorded its findings on evidence available on record. Consequently it follows that even the penalty imposed by the Labour Court cannot be said to be inadequate. 9. Regarding the contention of petitioners that the 1st respondent approached the Labour Court without pursuing the remedies of appeal and revision available under the Service Regulations, the award would show that the appeal of the 1st respondent was rejected by the appellate authority on 27-6-1998. The award reads that the 1st respondent preferred a revision before the concerned authority against the appellate order, but it was not disposed of and the 1st respondent stated so before the Labour Court. It cannot therefore be said that the 1st respondent did not pursue the remedies of appeal and revision. The petitioners did not raise any objection on this count before the Labour Court and did not invite it to decide it as a preliminary objection. The award shows that the petitioners also contested the matter on merits. This writ petition is of 2002 and we are now in August, 2011 i.e. more than nine years have elapsed. In the above circumstances, the objection of petitioners on this ground is rejected. 10. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons, it follows that this writ petition should fail and it is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 17th August, 2011 CVRK