*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAMAMOHANA RAO +WRIT PETITION No. 34413 OF 1998 %Dated 29.02.2008 # The Depot Manager, APS RTC., Medak District. ..... PETITIONER VERSUS $ 1. D. Narayana & another ...RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. B.G. Uma Devi ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri Sadu Rajeswara Reddy < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1. (2005) 7 SCC 338 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 34413 of 1998 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Medak Depot, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 D.Narayana E.253411, S/o. D.Manikyam, Velpugonda Mandal, Tekmal, Medak District. 2 The President Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.105/95 dated 10/01/1997 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal by way of issue of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. B.G. Uma Devi Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri Sadu Rajeswara Reddy The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted by the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Medak Depot – a State-owned Transport Corporation, questioning the correctness and validity of the award dated 10th January 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Hyderabad in Industrial Dispute No. 105 of 1995. I.D.No. 105 of 1995 has been raised by the 1st respondent, who was working as a Conductor with the Corporation, questioning the validity of the action of the Corporation in removing him from service, by an order dated 5th August 1995. It is alleged that while the 1st respondent was conducting the bus plying between Medak and Sangareddy on 1st February 1995, it has been subjected to a check in between stages No. 6 and 7. It has been found that the 1st respondent-Conductor had not issued tickets to three passengers, who have boarded the bus at stage No.6, though he had collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.50 from them. He has been alleged to have allowed the bus to commence its journey without issuing the tickets to all the passengers. Though the 1st respondent has removed from the tray and punched the tickets of the denomination Rs.1.50 Ps., he had not actually issued the same to the passengers concerned. Therefore, the Corporation has suspected that the 1st respondent- Conductor was attempting to defraud the Corporation of its revenue. On the contrary, the 1st respondent-Conductor would plead that the bus was full and that he is, in fact, in the process of issuing tickets and, hence, he has not concluded the entries in the statistical return in which he is required to enter the details relating to the tickets sold by him to the passengers. The 1st respondent would plead that the very fact that he had already removed the tickets from the tray and punched them reflects the bona fide conduct and his intention to pass on the tickets to the passengers concerned and, therefore, he cannot be alleged to have attempted to defraud the Corporation of its revenue. On appreciation of all the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court, by its award, directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent – Conductor back to duty with all attendant benefits, such as, continuity of service. It had, however, denied him the payment of back wages completely. It is significant to note that the first respondent had been reinstated on 16th August 1997 and is presently functioning as a Conductor with the Corporation. Smt. B.G. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would urge that the approach of the Labour Court in ordering the reinstatement of the 1st respondent, duly setting aside the order of removal passed against him on 5th August 1995, is improper and incorrect. The learned Standing Counsel would further urge that the Labour Court had unduly taken into account and consideration the fact that the fare collected from the three passengers i.e. Rs.1.50 Ps. each being too marginal a money, whereas the Courts have been consistently pointing out that irrespective of the quantum of the money misappropriated, the punishment should be severe. According to the learned counsel, since the State-owned Transport Corporations will be surviving only upon the revenue generated by way of sale of tickets to the passengers and any attempt on the part of the Conductors to defraud the Corporation will amount to robbing of its legitimate due while simultaneously enabling the Conductor to unjustly enrich himself. The learned Standing Counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment in V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C.[1] The learned Standing Counsel is right in pointing out that it is not the quantum of the money that is misappropriated or attempted to be misappropriated, but the tendency to indulge in such a misconduct is vital. However, when we take the fact situation prevailing in the case on hand, it becomes clear that at the time the surprise check was undertaken between stages No. 6 and 7, there were 65 passengers carrying tickets on board, obviously the bus is full. As many as 18 passengers, who have boarded the bus at stage No.6, have already been issued the tickets. Only three more passengers remained to be issued the tickets. Excepting these three passengers, all other 65 passengers have been issued the correct denomination tickets and they were also made to pay the exact amounts being the fare for their journey. The 1st respondent has taken out three tickets from the tray and punched them as well. Thus, it reflects that the 1st respondent-Conductor is still in the process of issuing the tickets. If he had got the slightest of an intention to misappropriate the revenues of the Corporation, he would not have taken out the tickets and would not have punched them and he would have concluded the statistical return, duly noting therein the number of tickets already sold by him. The very fact that he issued tickets to 18 passengers who boarded the bus at stage No.6, but he had not closed the statistical return for stage No.6 indicates that the 1st respondent is still in the process of issuing tickets and upon completion of that process, he would have made the necessary entries in the statistical return. This apart, the surprise check itself has revealed that the 1st respondent had already removed Rs.1.50 denomination tickets from the tray and also punched them. Every Conductor is required to punch the tickets at two places indicating the point of commencement of journey and the end point of the intended journey. Therefore, if a ticket has been removed from the tray and if it has already been punched, indicating the starting point of the journey at stage No.6, it cannot but be accounted for by the Conductor. Therefore, the collection of Rs.1.50 Ps. from each one of the passengers being the correct fare and the tickets having already been removed from the tray and punched at stage No.6, is conclusively establishing the intended act of the 1st respondent to pass the tickets to the passengers. It is no doubt true that the first respondent is guilty of technically violating the instructions of the Corporation to start the onward bus journey only after completion of issuance of tickets, but sometimes, it may not be possible to hold back the onward journey for want of completion of the “ticket issuing process” for, it might consume more time and during the peak hours, the pressure from the passengers could be very enormous for completing the journey. There could be several factors for the urgency of some of the passengers, who could be office-goers, college or school-going students or hospital-attending passengers. There cannot be a hard and fast rule to fasten liability in this regard on to a conductor without regard being had to the facts and circumstances existing on record. They cannot be discarded completely from being looked at. It is, therefore, only a case of technical violation of allowing the onward journey of the bus, without completing the issuance of tickets. The 1st respondent, for this technical violation, has been adequately penalized by the Labour Court by denying him the back wages for nearly two years period from the date he was removed. It is a settled principle of law that punishment should not only meet the offender, but also the quantum of guilt held established against the employee concerned. In the instant case, the conduct of the 1st respondent is not wholly blameworthy. Therefore, there should have been a proper exercise of discretion indulged in by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment. Host of punishments have been listed out in Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, commencing from censure and ending up with the dismissal from service. For every misconduct indulged in by a Conductor, routinely the punishment of removal/dismissal should not have been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, by the very nature of the scale of punishments listed out in Rule 8, is required to exercise his mind and discretion on proper lines and impose an appropriate punishment. In a case of this nature, the Disciplinary Authority should have considered to impose any of the minor punishments, which would have perhaps met with the situation and would have also produced the desired result of correcting any erring employee. Far from that, severe punishment of removal has been imposed and, consequently, the Labour Court had exercised the power available to it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court may not have indicated the process of exercise of the power available to it under Section 11-A of the Act in so many words but the same is clearly visible for inference from the record. The failure of the disciplinary authority to apply his mind properly to the relevant factors gave rise for interference by the Labour Court. I, therefore, do not find any valid or substantial reasons for altering the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No. 105 of 1995 instituted by the 1st respondent. For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) 29th February 2008 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{PRASAD} [1] (2005) 7 SCC 338