THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.10247 OF 2004 Dated 25th June, 2010 Between: Marisetty Vasu … Petitioner And The Depot Manager and another … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.Sanjeeva Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1 : Smt W.V.S.Rajeswari Counsel for respondent No.2 : G.P for Labour The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to award dated 03.02.2004 in I.D.No.83 of 2001 on the file of the Labour Court, Ananthapur and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and full back wages. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1991 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”). On 19.06.2000, when he was conducting Bus Bearing No.6062 on the route Kanchi to Tirumala, a check was exercised by the Travelling Ticket Inspector of Regional Enforcement Squad, Tirupathi, at Stage No.1 of Tirumala at about 18.45 hours. The checking officials alleged certain cash and ticket irregularities against the petitioner and he was issued with charge sheet dated 26.06.2000 with the following charges. 1. For having violated the Rules of APSRTC, by issuing ghat road tickets to passengers after dispatch of service which constitutes misconduct under Eg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC, Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 2. For having issued unconnected and different date and time punched tickets bearing Nos.004/865527 to 531 of Rs.18/- demn.E-5 and 003/838425 to 426 of Rs.9/- demn.E-2 to a batch of 4 adults and 4 children passengers after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.108/- who boarded the bus at Tirupathi and found alighting under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. Checked your service waybill No.0752/15900047 Tray No.159 and detected Rs.36/- denomination tickets from 007/041538 to 007/041599 (E.62 tickets) not found in tray box thus you have temporarily misappropriated an amount of Rs.2232/- which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg.28 (x) of APSRTC, Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. For having opened Rs.40/- demn. Ticket block in the service SR as 076/200772 whereas in the waybill the opening number is 076/200752, thus difference of E-20 tickets worth of Rs.800/- temporarily misappropriated the corporation revenue which constitutes serious misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC, Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” The petitioner submitted explanation on 29.06.2000 denying the charges levelled against him. Without considering the said explanation, respondent No.1 ordered for enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to impose punishment of removal from service. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. Respondent No.1, without considering the said explanation, passed order dated 06.09.2000, removing the petitioner from service. The appellate and revisional authorities confirmed the order of removal. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before respondent No.2, which was registered as I.D.No.83/2001 and the Labour Court, by order dated 03.02.2004, dismissed the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of the four charges framed against the petitioner, Charge No.1 is a formal one. As regards Charge No.2, he submitted that the tickets found with the passengers are unconnected with their travel and that they were not issued by the petitioner. He also submitted that the passengers were not examined by the Corporation either during the course of the departmental enquiry or before the Labour Court to prove the alleged charge against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the passengers who intend to travel from Tirupathi to Tirumala have to purchase the tickets from the counter in the Tirupathi Station itself and board the bus; that there will not be any ticket tray with the Conductor and that the duty of the Conductor is only to verify whether the passengers boarded the bus have purchased the tickets of appropriate amounts or not. The checking officials have not verified as to whether the ticket numbers contained on the tickets secured from the possession of the passengers have got any relevance with the actual tickets of the bus. Coming to Charge Nos. 3 and 4, the learned counsel submitted that these charges are unconnected with the check that took place on 19.06.2000. Because of the fact that no provable charges are framed against the petitioner, Charge Nos.3 and 4 have been brought into existence to see that the petitioner is removed from service; that if these charges are deleted from the area of consideration, only charge No.2 will remain, which charge is not proved by the Corporation by producing relevant material. The learned counsel also submitted that as on the date of removal, the petitioner had put in 8 years of service and by that time, he was having 22 years of service and already 10 years have elapsed. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that even assuming that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, the charges are not so serious, which warrant removal of the petitioner from service and that the punishment of removal needs to be revived as it is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that though the Labour Court is vested with the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give appropriate relief in cases of discharge or dismissal of workmen, it had not exercised the same in this case. Finally, he submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with continuity of service and full back wages. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that it is a case where the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, which are also confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities and ultimately by the Labour Court, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award. It is not in dispute that the Conductor does not issue tickets to the passengers who travel from Tirupathi to Tirumala and the passengers have to purchase the tickets from the counter at Tirupathi itself. The duty of the Conductor is only to verify whether the passengers who boarded the bus possess appropriate tickets or not and he will not have the ticket tray with him. In this case, the Corporation has not produced the passengers, either during the course of departmental enquiry or before the Labour Court, who were found travelling in the bus at the time of check, to prove that the tickets in their possession were issued by the Conductor. Under these circumstances, it is not known as to how the Enquiry Officer placed reliance on the report of the Travelling Ticket Inspector and concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, which has become the basis for the original, appellate, revisional authorities and the Labour Court to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. But the fact remains that the petitioner was not having the duty of issuance of tickets to the passengers; that the tickets found with the passengers were not of the day on which the check was conducted and the passengers were not examined to depose as to how they had obtained the tickets and an opportunity to cross-examine them was provided to the petitioner. Having regard to all these circumstances, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is very harsh. At this length of time, if the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration, it may cause further inconvenience to the petitioner. Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, I am of the opinion that the award passed by respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside and respondent No.1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as Conductor, but without continuity of service and without back wages. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J Dated 25th June, 2010 vrn