THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2637 of 2009 DATED:12.02.2009 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa …..Petitioner AND J.V.Ramana, E-403417, Conductor, represented by the Regional Secretary, National Mazdoor Union, APSRTC, Kadapa and another ….Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2637 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa, questioning the award, dated 31.07.2007, passed in I.D.No.282 of 2003 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anathapur. The background facts of the case, in brief, are :- J.V.Ramana-1st respondent was the Conductor in APSRTC, Kadapat Depot. While he was conducting the bus bearing No.AP.10Z 8000 on 07.04.2001 on the route Pulivendula-Nellore, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.12 at 11-40 hours. The checking officials found one lady passenger traveling from stages 1 to 17. It is alleged that the first respondent issued lower denomination tickets worth of Rs.85/- i.e., two tickets bearing Nos.592905 and 906 for Rs.40/- each and Rs.5/- denomination bearing No. 448129. The first respondent ought to have issued tickets worth of Rs.95/- instead of Rs.85/-. A charge memo was issued to him and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer found the first respondent guilty of the charge. Thereupon, the Depot Manager issued show cause notice, dated 16.08.2001, proposing the punishment of removal from service. The first respondent submitted explanation on 18.08.2001 and finally the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa passed orders removing the first respondent from service by issuing proceedings dated 24.08.2001. The first respondent preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager and the Divisional Manager took a lenient view and ordered for reinstatement of the first respondent by awarding the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years, which has effect on his future increments. The first respondent filed review petition before the Regional Manager and the same came to be rejected. Thereafter. The Government by G.O.Rt.No.1807 Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab-1) Department, dated 12.09.2003 referred the dispute under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute came to be taken on file by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur as I.D.No.282 of 2003. The learned Chairman –cum- Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur on considering the entire material brought on record came to the conclusion that the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect of the first respondent is not justified and thereby modified the punishment to deferment of annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect by an award dated 31.07.2007. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the award, which reads as hereunder:- “As stated supra the petitioner had to issue one ticket of Rs.40/- denomination, another ticket of Rs.50/- denomination and also one more ticket of Rs.5/- denomination towards the requisite fare of Rs.95/- but according to him he issued two tickets of Rs.40/- denomination by mistake and over sight instead of issuing a ticket of Rs.50/- denomination as combination ticket to Rs.40/- and Rs.5/- denominations. The omission on the part of the petitioner appears bonafide mistake but not intentional. Hence probably the order of removal from service issued by the Depot Manager was modified one into deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect by an order of the Respondent Divisional manager made on 06.10.2001. The petitioner herein since already under gone sufficient punishment in view of the gravity of the misconduct, the modified punishment has to be yet to be modified as one into without cumulative effect of the deferred increment. The said Award is under challenge. Heard the learned standing counsel of A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court is not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the lower appellate Court and, in the given facts and circumstances, the punishment is not disproportionate. The Labour Court considered the material brought on record and exercised discretion with regard to modification of the quantum of punishment. Indisputably, there were 65 passengers travelling on the date of check exercised by the TTIs. Except the first respondent issuing a ticket of lesser denomination, there is no other allegation that he misused his position. In the given facts and circumstances, the Labour Court, rightly exercised discretion and modified the quantum of punishment. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the Labour Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 12th February, 2009 bud