HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.457 of 2008 Date: November 18, 2010 Between: M. Nageswara Rao … Petitioner And 1. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, rep. by Its Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.457 of 2008 ORDER: The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D. No.102 of 2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam assails the NIL award dated 02.3.2007 passed therein. 2. The petitioner was a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 06.9.2002 on the following charges: Charge No.1: For having unauthorizedly attended private duties as driver to the private jeep No.AP 31 W 6398 by way of reporting sick (in order to cover your absence) to avoid duties in RTC, as detected by the RTC/RTO officials during special drive on 31.8.2002 which is contrary to the Conduct Regulations and constitutes misconduct under Reg.17 (1) and (2) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. Charge No.2: For having carried the passengers in a private jeep No.AP 31 W 6398 on 31.8.2002, who were expected to travel by the RTC buses causing adverse effect on the revenues of the Corporation which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct Regulations 1963. Charge No.3: For having unauthorizedly absented to your duties from 31.8.2002 onwards without submitting any sick certificate causing much inconvenience to the travelling public and dislocation of services and resulting cancellation of the K.Ms. besides loss of revenue to the Corporation which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) & (ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 3. He submitted his explanation on 11.9.2002. Having suspended him from service on 12.9.2002 and being dissatisfied with his explanation, the APSRTC instituted a regular inquiry in the matter. By report dated 19.10.2002, the Enquiry Officer held against the petitioner on all three charges. Thereupon, he was removed from service by order dated 07.02.2003. His appeal and thereafter, his review met with failure on 29.4.2003 and 01.9.2003 respectively. He then approached the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. By its award dated 02.3.2007, the Labour Court concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and upheld the removal of the petitioner from service. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Relevant to note, the petitioner filed a memo before the Labour Court admitting the validity of the domestic inquiry. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the Labour Court, it would not be in every case that the Labour Court would undertake re- appreciation of the evidence. The Labour Court would necessarily have to come to the conclusion that the case was a proper one for such exercise. 5. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v. Management of M/s. Usha Breco Limited and another[1], the Labour Court would not re-examine the evidence even if two views were possible. It is only if the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse or completely opposed to the material on record that the Labour Court would venture to re-examine the evidence. Apart from this, the Labour Court would also be entitled to interfere on the ground of proportionality of the punishment. 6. However, the facts of the present case demonstrate that the petitioner while on sick leave was apprehended by a team headed by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector along with RTC staff while plying a private vehicle carrying passengers for hire. The Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report (Ex.M-6) bears the signature of the petitioner. This signature was affixed by him in the capacity of the driver of the said vehicle when caught during the special drive check by the said team. The security guard and the Assistant Manager (Traffic) of the APSRTC deposed before the Enquiry Officer in support of this charge. The petitioner’s driving licence was seized by the said officers during the check and surprisingly, the petitioner did not choose to cross-examine them on this aspect. It was his version that his driving licence had been seized even prior to his falling sick. However, he did not substantiate this version by independent evidence. In that view of the matter, the findings of the Enquiry Officer as regards charges 1 and 2, which found approval with the Labour Court, cannot be found fault with on the ground of perversity. Therefore, these charges stood established. 7. The gravity of the misconduct alleged and proved against the petitioner under charges 1 and 2 was serious as it reflected upon his integrity and demonstrated that he had caused loss of revenue to the APSRTC. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot seek any lenience in terms of the quantum of punishment on the ground of proportionality. The Supreme Court in KSRTC v. A.T. Mane[2] held that once there is loss of confidence in the employee, the employer cannot be saddled with such an employee on the ground of proportionality of the punishment. Further, in Regional Manager, UPSRTC v. Hoti Lal[3], the Supreme Court observed: “10. ………….. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable.” 8. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot expect any lenience while dealing with the quantum of punishment once he failed to discharge his fiduciary duties to the APSRTC. Viewed from any angle, the award under challenge does not warrant interference. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: November 18, 2010. BSB [1] (2008) 5 SCC 554 [2] (2005) 3 SCC 254 [3] (2003) 3 SCC 605