IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7051 of 2000 Between: Sd. Inayatulla, Islampura, Near Chowrastha, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda District. .....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 issue a writ order or directions calling for the records relating to I.D.No.37/92 dt 2-3- 1993 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the award dt 2-3-93 passed therein in so far as it is against the petitioner in denying the increments and other attendant benefits including the back-wages with consequential directions to the 2nd respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits including back- wages and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a conductor in APSRTC, attached with Yadagirigutta Depot, Nalgonda District, challenges the award of the Labour Court No. III, Hyderabad, dated 2.03.1993 passed in I.D.No.37 of 1992. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was conducting the bus on 29.05.1985 on the route Yadagirigutta to Poonampally, the bus was inspected between stage Nos.8 and 9 by the checking officials and they found certain cash and ticket irregularities. On the report submitted by the checking officials, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge sheet was issued on 25.06.1985. The charge framed against the petitioner was that about 12 passengers traveling from stage 8 to 9 were not issued tickets and he has not collected the fare and the same amounts to misconduct as per the APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations. The petitioner in his explanation denied the charge. A regular inquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, he submitted a report holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. Based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was removed from the service. Against the removal order, on the representation made by the petitioner, conciliation proceedings were initiated. On failure of conciliation, the Government referred the matter to the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad for adjudication. The Labour Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the charge are proved. But taking the other mitigating circumstances into consideration that the petitioner has not collected the fare, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and by the impugned award set aside the order of removal dated 26.12.1985 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by giving the benefit of continuity of service. However, as a measure of punishment to the petitioner the Tribunal held that the petitioner is not entitled to annual increments from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement and also back-wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as much as the petitioner has not collected the fare, there was no mala fide intention to misappropriate the revenue of the corporation. In view of the same, the punishment withholding of annual increments from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement is not warranted. From a perusal of the award, it is clear that though it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to issue tickets at stage No.8 itself, but even up to the place where checking has taken place i.e., between stage Nos.8 and 9, the petitioner failed to issue tickets to 12 passengers. Though it is pleaded by the petitioner that there was some delay in issuing tickets on account of rain and poor lighting etc., but the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, has found that the charge is proved. Even in the domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer held that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved. Though the petitioner has not collected the fare, it is not known what was his intention in not collecting fare. Merely because he has not collected the fare that itself is not a ground that he has no mala fide intention and it is not for this Court to accept the explanation of the petitioner at this stage. The fact remains that by not collecting the fare in violation of the conduct Regulations, the petitioner has made a loss of revenue to the corporation. Though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no reason for depriving the benefit of annual increments to the petitioner, but the Tribunal while recording a finding that the charge was proved, has taken a lenient view by ordering reinstatement giving continuity of service by exercising its discretion conferred under Section 11-A of the Act. Hence I see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 2nd March, 2009 Js.