IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:17502 of 1999 Between: K.Prabhakar Son of K.Laxmi Reddy, Bhupannapadu, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Banaganapalli Depot, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS. K.UDAYASRI FOR MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for Respondent No.2:MRS. W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash award, dated 20.11.1996 in I.D.No.190 of 1994 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur to the extent the petitioner was denied back wages and was imposed with the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Heard Smt. K.Udayasri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. The petitioner, a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) of Banaganapalli Depot, was conducting a bus bearing No.AP9Z 6541 on the route Guntur to Banaganapalli, when a check was administered by the officials of the Corporation at Stage No.10. On the basis of the alleged irregularities found during the check, charge sheet, dated 16.02.1994 was issued with the following charges. 1. “For having collected Rs.23/- instead of Rs.30/- from a passenger for his travel from Vinukonda to Giddalur ex.stages 12 to 7 but issued tickets worth Rs.23/- Nos. 123-195077 of Rs.20/- deno., and 134-726796 of Rs.30/- deno., and thus you have collected less fare and issued less tickets, which constitutes misconduct under Regulations 28 (xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”. 2. For having collected Rs.15/- instead of 23/- from a passenger for his travel from Vinukonda to Khammam Ex.stages 13 to 9 but issued tickets worth Rs.15/- Nos.334-8058 of Rs.10/- deno., and 207-386511 of Rs.5/- deno., and thus you have collected less fare and issued less tickets which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having Rs.61/- from a passenger for his travel from Guntur to Nandyal ex.stages 14 to 5 but re-issued ticket No.024-463738 of Rs.5/- deno., which was already issued and accounted at stage No.5 in ‘UP’ journey in combination to ticket No.338-458046 of Rs.10/- 095-456257 of Rs.1/- deno., which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 4. For having altered the closing No.739 as 738 of Rs.50/- deno., in service S.R.No.2091226 from stage No.5 (Nandyal) to stage No.14 (Guntur) which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 18 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. The petitioner’s explanation was considered but not being satisfied with it, a regular departmental enquiry was held into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner by the Corporation. By order, dated 14.06.1994, the petitioner was removed from service and the said order was affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority on 10.07.1994. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court and the same was taken on file as I.D.No.190 of 1994. No oral and documentary evidence was let-in by either of the parties. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner conceded about the fare procedure followed by the Corporation. With regard to charges 1 and 2, the Labour Court recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the charges were well founded and proved. But the stand of the petitioner was that he was mentally upset in view of illness of his son and, therefore, he could not issue tickets with proper denomination. The Labour Court observed that there is no charge against the petitioner that he had intended to collect the balance fare and misappropriate the same. With regard to charges 3 and 4, the Labour Court accepted the petitioner’s plea that the up-journey ticket in question was the last ticket and was counted in S.R. at stage No.5 and that the same number was continued up to Stage No.14, and held that charges 3 and 4 have not been proved. On the strength of the above findings, the Labour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act’) by ordering the petitioner’s reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages and other attendant benefits and reducing the punishment by deferring two annual increments with cumulative effect. In my considered view, exercise of discretion by the Labour Court in this case cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality warranting this Court’s interference. The fact that the petitioner issued tickets of short denomination and caused loss to the Corporation is admitted. The Labour Court showed lenience in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that there is no further charge that the petitioner indulged in issuing of short-denomination tickets with a view to misappropriate the amount by collecting higher fare from the passengers. Similarly, the Labour Court has taken a broader view in accepting the explanation of the petitioner with regard to re-issue of used tickets under charge No.3 and also alteration of entries in the S.R. under charge No.4. While two views are possible on the misconduct alleged against the petitioner under charges 1 to 4, the Labour Court substituted its view with that of the view taken by the domestic Tribunal and imposed lesser punishment on the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni