THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.25545 OF 2000 Dt:25-11-2010. BETWEEN: M.A.SAMI .. PETITIONER AND LABOUR COURT-III, HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, HANDRAVIHAR COMPLEX ROAD, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.25545 OF 2000 O R D E R : This writ petition is directed against an award made in I.D.No.289 of 1994 dated 26-8-1998 on the file of Labour Court III, Hyderabad. It appears the petitioner was appointed as a driver into the services of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1978. According to the petitioner, he had rendered unblemished service till the date he was removed from service by the 2nd respondent illegally. It appears while the petitioner was driving vehicle bearing No.AAZ 7443 on route No.299/205-B on 1.4.1993 a check was exercised by the officials at Abdullapurmet and followed the vehicle upto Hayathnagar and issued a charge memo. On the basis of the charge memo a charge sheet was issued with the following charges: “ 1. For having failed to touch the Hayathnagar point while proceeding to Dilsukhnagar operated bus directly from HYT depot though the conductor has informed at HYT depot ‘X’ roads on National Highway itself to you to touch the HYT point to pickup the passengers, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.No.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employee’s (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to stop the bus even though conductor has given a whistle to stop the bus for continuation of ticket issues thereby caused loss to the corporation revenues and caused agony to the conductor while performing his duty which constitutes misconduct under Reg.No.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employee’s (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having used filthy language against the conductor and also threatened him for informing to the TTIs/DMs regarding non- stoppage of bus, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.No.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employee’s (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having given contradictory statements on 11.4.93 and 15.4.93, 15.3.93, which resulting concealing the facts, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employee’s (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation. However, having not satisfied with the same an Enquiry Officer was appointed. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted exparte and he was removed from service without following the Rules for the purpose of conducting enquiry and violating the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved thereby he has filed an appeal and the same was dismissed. Further, the petitioner raised a dispute under section 2(A)(2) of (A.P. Amendment Act 32 of 1987) of I.D.Act, 1947 before the Labour Court No.III, Hyderabad. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that the charges are as vague as they could be and the enquiry was not properly conducted and that in fact the petitioner could not participate in the enquiry as no notice was served on him and the removal from service is arbitrary and illegal, apart from being disproportionate to that of the misconduct, if any, proved. The 2nd respondent-Management filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and it was asserted that the petitioner was served with notice by the Enquiry Officer and that inspite of service of notice he did not attend the enquiry and that even there was no explanation to the show cause notice served on him, therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has violated the Rules. However, the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the respondent-management was just, proper and valid. Insofar as coming to the merits of the case, after detailed consideration, it was found that the charges are not proved and therefore the order of removal from the service is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. It appears the petitioner was reinstated into service thereafter and now by this time of attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the enquiry was not properly conducted as required under the Rules and that the enquiry conducted was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. Even otherwise the Labour Court while holding that the charges are not proved have granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and all attendant benefits, but no back wages were granted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Labour Court having held that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner erroneously denied the back wages. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent strenuously contended that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry and therefore he cannot blame the department to say that there was violation of principles of natural justice or the Rules governing the field and that the petitioner does not deserve any further relief apart from the relief granted by the Labour Court and that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset it is necessary to notice the findings recorded by the Labour Court, which read as under: “ Now regarding the 1st charge is concerned when a specific charge has been framed against the petitioner that he failed to touch the Hayathnagar point while proceeding to Dilsukhnagar operated directly from Hayathnagar depot. When such is the charge for which from the Enquiry report it is obvious that no charge memo was issued in connection with the charge. More over from the enquiry report Ex.M.25 while answering for charge No.2 the E.O. in his report has clearly stated that the passengers were boarded the bus at Hayathnagar point. When the driver has not touched Hayathnagar point and in the S.R. at Hayathnagar point marked under the column of No. of passengers. If really the petitioner has not touched the Hayathnagar point there is no possibility for these passengers to get into the bus at that point as observed by the E.O. in his report, which itself answer that the petitioner has touched the Hayathnagar point and it is also observed by the E.O. in his report stating that “the driver had no answer about this charge in his spot explanation and his reply to the charge memo”. I am very much astonished to notice this observed in the absence of the charge memo, there is no necessity for the driver to submit any explanation regarding the said charge. In the charge memo Ex.M2 which was issued by the TTIs after checking that he failed to stop the bus at Hayathnagar to Peddamberpet point Ex. stages 9 to 11. Thus, in the absence of any specific mention that Hayathnagar point there is no necessity for the petitioner to say anything about the same. Thus, from the finding of the above said charge is not based on satisfied grounds. Therefore, in my opinion the said charge is not proved by the respondent by adducing cogent and convincing reasons. Coming to charge No.2 admittedly when a charge memo has been issued to the petitioner that he has not stopped the bus while the conductor gave a whistle 9 to 11, thereby he could not issue tickets to 6 passengers who were found without tickets at the time of check exercised by the checking officials. From the statement under Ex.M9 which is got written by one Sri.M.Omnath and from the reply given under Ex.M0 to the charge memo in which he clearly stated that on 1.4.93 he was the driver of bus and a check was exercised and the checking officials found passengers without tickets who were travelling from Hayathnagar. For the said explanation he has clearly stated that he stopped the bus for issue of tickets wherever necessary and the conductor coming to the cabin only he started the bus and accordingly he also stopped the bus at Laxmireddypalem where some passenger were alighting with a current motor pump, and the conductor, did not told him anything about issue of tickets. Therefore, the charge is set- aside. The respondent was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, thereby an enquiry was ordered when an enquiry was ordered it is the responsibility of the respondent to serve the notice as to enquiry by modes prescribed under law. Though the E.O. in his report has stated that he sent the enquiry notices by way of regd. Post ack due and the same were returned undelivered. Thus, he sent the notice relating to enquiry to give his statement but the petitioner has avoided to receive but from sending notice by regd. Post and not serving on the petitioner is not sufficient and as per the regulations of the Corporation when notice could not be served by post then the said notice ought to have been displayed on the notice board of the depot where the petitioner has lastly worked. But on a careful scrutiny of the entire enquiry report, I failed to see that such a step has been taken by the respondent and a reasonable opportunity can be given to the petitioner at least when he attended the depot and received the removal order even at which time also the respondent has not taken any steps to serve the copy of the charge sheet. More examining the TTIs and conductor of the bus who were not even cross- examined by the petitioner. Thus, the entire proceedings are exparte proceedings and the same cannot be taken into consideration so as to prove the contents if the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thus, by not observing the principles of natural justice the enquiry report and the evidence I hold the charge has not proved by cogent and convincing evidence. Thereby the entire enquiry is vitiated and I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity to put forth his contention regarding the charges framed against him and the enquiry held against him. By virtue of my finding I am of the view that the removal order of the respondent is not in consonance with the sound principles of law and not based on the principles of natural justice. Hence, the removal order is set aside.” From the above it is clear that charge No.1 was that the petitioner did not touch Hayathnagar point inspite of the whistle given by the conductor. If really the petitioner has not touched Hayathnagar point there was no possibility for the passengers to get into the bus at that point, as observed by the Enquiry Officer in his report. Insofar as charge No.2 was concerned in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it was clearly stated that he stopped the bus for issuance of tickets wherever necessary and the conductor came to the cabin and thereafter he started the bus and accordingly he also stopped the bus at Laxmireddypalem where some passengers alighted and the conductor did not tell him anything about the issue of tickets. Thus, there was no misconduct on the part of the driver though the Enquiry Officer has recorded that the notices were sent, there is no proof that they were served on the petitioner. Thus, taking the over all situation into consideration the Labour Court has held that the charges are not proved and apart from the fact that principles of natural justice were also violated passed the award of reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that when once the Labour Court has stated that the charges are not proved, apart from the fact that the principles of natural justice are violated the Labour Court was not right in denying the back wages to the petitioner. Apart from that the charges are as vague as they could be and trivial in nature which does not require punishment of denial of back wages to the employee and hence the petitioner is entitled for 50 percent of the back wages. Under those circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court is modified as under: The 2nd respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all other attendant benefits and with fifty percent of the back wages. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Dt:25-11-2010. ( C.V.RAMULU, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.25545 OF 2000 DT: 25-11-2010.