IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13164 of 1999 Between: R.Shanker Rao, S/o. Ramchandraiah. E.No.100718, R/o. Ispet Post & Village, Mogulapalli Mdl, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. By Its Presiding Officer, Warangal. 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. By Its Depot Manager. Jangaon, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and quash the Award passed by the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.104/1991, dated 08/10/1993, published on 13/12/1993, declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, without appreciation of facts, evidence, material on record and in violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, by granting reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR Labour Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Smt P.Rajini Reddy The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by an Award made in I.D.No.104 of 1991, dated 8.10.1993 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,( for short ‘the Act’) was dismissed. Petitioner is the workman and 2nd respondent is the Management. It appears that while the petitioner conducting the bus bearing No.AAZ 8025 on 25.10.1986 at 16.30 hours at Narmetta, a check was exercised by the checking officials and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found and a charge memo was issued. Basing on the charge memo, charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges: 1.For having violated the rule ‘Issue & start’ while conducting the bus No.AAZ.8025, on 25.10.1986 which amounts to misconduct under Reg.28 (XXXii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2.For having collected the police-warrant, bearing No.515385, dt.25.10.1986, from the two police constables and failed to issue tickets to them, who were found alighting without tickets at Narmetta and having boarded the bus at Jangaon, ex-stages 20 to 25, and the ticket Nos.079/602985 to 986 of Rs.2-50 denomination were endorsed on the police-warrant as having been issued to the constables, were found with some other passengers alighting at Nametta, ex-stages 25, which amounts to misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. It is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the explanation offered by him was not considered in its true spirit. In fact, the constables whose warrant was collected by the Conductor, were holding tickets, as they were in civil dress, the checking officials took them to be passengers other than the constables who boarded the bus on the basis of warrant. Therefore, the removal order passed by the respondents is without any basis and contrary to the evidence on record. Even assuming that there is some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was awarded with several punishments like censured 5 times, security deposit forfeited twice and removed from service once in cash and ticket irregularity cases earlier. The enquiry was properly conducted and since the charges were proved, the petitioner was removed from service and the petitioner does not deserve any relief as sought for. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side. However, the labour Court after considering the entire material placed before it, found that the enquiry conducted by the respondent-Management was proper and valid and further, the charges are proved in full and in view of grave charge, the petitioner does not deserve any relief whatsoever and therefore, dismissed the application filed under Section 2-A (2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the enquiry was not properly conducted nor the explanation offered by the petitioner was considered in proper spirit and even otherwise, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the award passed by the respondents and contended that the charges are very grave in its nature and there was no other option except to dismiss the petitioner and the Labour Court has rightly found that the petitioner does not deserve any relief whatsoever. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material available on record. The Labour Court has thoroughly examined the case and discussed each and every aspect of the evidence. In fact, it was noticed by the labour Court that the checking squad obtained statements of the passengers and also spot explanation from the petitioner. The police constables clearly stated that they boarded the bus at Jangaon with police warrant No.515385 to go to Narmeta and they gave the police warrant to the conductor. But the Conductor-petitioner did not return the police warrant with any tickets. However, at the time of the check, they were not in possession of the tickets since the conductor did not issue any tickets to them. This statement was attested by the Conductor by mentioning that the contents are true. However, in the spot explanation, the Conductor stated that the two constables boarded the bus at Jangaon and he took the warrant from them at Jangaon. He noted the ticket Nos.602985 and 986 on the warrant, but he has forgotten to issue the said tickets to the constables. He also categorically stated that the above said two tickets were found in possession of two other passengers who were found alighting at Jangaon. Therefore, the documentary evidence is crystal clear that the conductor though noted the ticket numbers on the police warrant, did not issue the said tickets to the constables, but he issued the same to other passengers after collecting the requisite fare from them, the said tickets are not available with the police constables. Under those circumstances, the labour Court, rightly came to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to establish the charges and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any relief whatsoever in view of his past conduct. I am of the opinion that the labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________ 28-03-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. By Its Presiding Officer, Warangal. 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. By Its Depot Manager. Jangaon, Warangal District. 3.2CD copies