IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Day, the 24th day of August, 2011. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 21874 of 2002 Between: S. Laxminarayana ..Petitioner and Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and another …Respondents The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 21874 of 2002 O r d e r: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Award passed in I.D.No.42 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back-wages and other attendant benefits. 2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was a conductor, in Kamareddy Depot, Nizamabad District of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). On 13-4-2008 when petitioner was conductor of the bus plying between Kamareddy – Bibipet, he is alleged to have committed certain ticket irregularities. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against him for the said certain ticket irregularities on the following two charges. (charges are reproduced verbatim) 1. “For having reissued the ticket bearing No.401/570011 and 570012 of Rs.5-00 den, which were already issued duly punching from 1 to 5 stages at stage No.1 (KMR) and accounted at stage No.2 in the SR No.6653338 in 21.30 hrs. Kamareddy – Bibipet trip, to two passengers who boarded in your bus at Fareedpet and bound to Kamareddy ex-stages 5to 1, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having violated the rule issue and start, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.No.28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. After receiving the explanation of the petitioner and holding domestic inquiry, the primary authority dealing with the disciplinary matters by its order dated:5.8.1998 removed the petitioner from service. It is represented that the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority, as well as the revisional authority under the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the above removal order in I.D.No.42 of 1999 in the Labour Court. It is also seen from the Award that the petitioner on 6.11.2001 filed a Memo under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) stating that he has no objection on the procedural aspects of the domestic inquiry. However, the petitioner contested the findings of the enquiry officer and the order of removal before the Labour Court and after considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court rejected the contentions of the petitioner and agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer in the disciplinary inquiry holding that the charges are proved. It also observed that the charges involved dishonesty and corruption and consequently having regard to the serious nature of the charges, it rejected the contention that the punishment of removal was highly disproportionate to the charges and in that view of the matter it confirmed the said punishment also. 4. Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the various findings recorded by the Labour Court and argued that so far as the first charge is concerned, which relates to issuance of already sold out tickets, the disciplinary authority and the Labour Court committed serious error in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner. He pointed out that the petitioner pleaded before the authority that on the relevant day he was suffering from sun-stroke and he could not realize what the passengers were saying against him and that in fact, the two passengers covered by charge No.1 made false statement to the effect that they paid fare to him. Sri Narasimha Goud also pointed out that the two passengers in question who traveled in his bus on the previous day, might have retained those issued tickets and in order to escape the penalty and payment of extra fare made false statement against him, after having been caught by the TTI for showing wrong tickets. 5. A perusal of the impugned Award would show that the Labour Court had discussed this aspect and ultimately concluded that the evidence on record does not permit acceptance of the petitioner’s contention. The Labour Court observed that the petitioner did not speak of deception on the part of the two passengers covered by Charge No.1 in his spot explanation, and that the statements of the passengers that they paid fare to the conductor i.e., Rs.5.00 each and the petitioner gave them wrong tickets has been found to be convincing by it. 6. It is now well settled that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court if they are supported by evidence. Nothing is brought to my notice to conclude that the findings of the Labour Court or its conclusion on the first charge are not supported by evidence or is against the evidence or otherwise perverse. 7. The second charge relates to violation of Rule – “Issue and Start” and this charge, apart from its independent nature can also be said to be connected to the first charge also. The Labour Court found that both the charges can be said to have been proved on evidence and it gave finding to that effect. Hence it is not open for this court now in these proceedings to interfere with the said finding for the aforesaid reasons. 8. Then turning to the order of the Labour Court relating to the penalty, Sri Narasimha Goud argued that the said aspect has been discussed by the Labour Court as point No.2 and its finding thereunder would show that it did not independently consider about the proportionality of the penalty. He says that the Labour Court simply observed that charge No.1 involves corruption and dishonesty and, therefore the punishment of removal is proper. Sri Goud submits that this approach of the Labour Court is not in accordance with Law, whereas Ms. W.V. S. Rajeswari learned standing counsel appearing for APSRTC submits that the award of the Labour court on the question of penalty is also quite proper and does not call for any interference. 9. Sri Narasimha Goud, in support of his contention regarding penalty, relied upon decisions of this court in S.Pulla Reddy v. Depot Manager, APSRTC[1] and C.V.Ramulu v. The Labour Court[2]. Basing on the above decisions, Sri Goud argued that the Labour court ought to have imposed lesser punishment directing reinstatement of the petitioner denying other benefits like back- wages etc. He also argued that since the Labour Court did not discuss about proportionality of punishment, the matter should be remanded. 10. Regarding penalty aspect it may be noted that charge No.1 is a serious one. It shows that the conductor has collected the fare of Rs.5-00 from two passengers and issued them already sold out tickets. The statements of the passengers, which have been taken into account, both by the authorities of the APSRTC and also the Labour Court and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not disputed the validity of the domestic inquiry, it follows that there cannot be any scope for having any different opinion about nature of the said charge. The petitioner’s plea/explanation, which is already mentioned supra, with regard to this charge has been rejected. It may be noted that taking money or fare and not issuing tickets or issuing the tickets not connected with the Tray of the conductor is a serious offence and it is corruption. The Labour Court keeping in view above circumstances discussed the penalty aspect under point No.2 of the Award, which reads as follows: “The petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 24.5.1996 on daily wage basis and his services were regularised w.e.f. 9.10.1997. The check was exercised on 13.4.1998. The petitioner had not completed two years of service by the date of check. Reissuing of tickets is serious misconduct. The petitioner attempted to defraud the corporation by reissuing the tickets which were already issued and account on the previous day. After taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner, I am of the view that the punishment imposed on him is just, proper and proportionate. Therefore, I hold that the respondent was justified in removing the petitioner from service. Hence I answer this point against the petitioner.” 11. A perusal of the above paragraph in the impugned Award would show that the Labour Court specifically held that the charge of taking fare and issuing of already sold tickets is a serious charge and after taking into consideration the gravity of the above charge/misconduct and the attendant circumstances, it held that the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner is not disproportionate to the misconduct. Therefore on the facts of this case, it can be said that the Labour court has considered the aspect of penalty in its proper perspective and consequently it cannot be said that these findings recorded by it are improper or otherwise vitiated. 12. In C.V. Ramulu case (2nd cited supra), this Court was dealing with certain circumstances therein, which, according to this court, were required to be considered by the Labour Court on the penalty aspect and the matter was accordingly remanded by this court, but that is not the case here. The Labour Court considered relevant aspects on penalty and confirmed it. 13. In S. Pulla Reddy case (1st cited supra) this court dealt with the charges of issuance of tickets once already issued by the Conductor. It is not necessary to go into other details. It was pointed out in the said decision on the facts and circumstances of that case, that it was not proved that the conductor therein had collected the two tickets which are issued to passengers therein, who traveled in the previous trip of the bus and further the cash of the conductor was also not checked. These were the circumstances, which weighed in the said case for reducing the penalty. That is again not the case here. It may be noted that in the domestic enquiry, the validity of which is not disputed by the petitioner, it was categorically held that the petitioner had collected the fare from two passengers covered by charge No.1 and he issued to them the tickets, which were already issued. The disciplinary authority and also the Labour Court relied upon on the statements of the passengers and concluded that the petitioner came up with the explanation that they traveled in the bus on the previous day, as an after thought and on that ground both the authorities have rejected the said explanation of the petitioner. Thus the circumstances appearing in this case are easily distinguishable from S. Pulla Reddy’s case (1st supra). Hence, the said case relied upon by Sri Narsimha Goud cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. 14. Thus for the aforesaid reasons, it follows that the Labour Court has considered all the aspects in the case i.e., both with regard to the proof of the charges and also the adequacy of the penalty imposed and confirmed it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has ignored any factor in adjudicating the matter. 15. Accordingly it follows that this writ petition must fail and it is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. Dated:24--08—2011. *BVS/TJMR [1] 1997 (2) ALD 558 [2] 1984 (2) APLJ 84