IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.11259 of 2001 Between: M.Basava Raju S/o.M.Tammanna, R/o.20-70, Farooq Nagar, Srinivas Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Labour Court, Hyderabad-II, Rep.by its Presiding Officer, IVth Floor, Chandravihar Complex, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Shadnagar Depot, Mahabubnagar 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 call for the records from the respondent No.1 in I.D.No187/99 (Old I.D.No.383/97) and quash the award passed in I.D.No.187/99 dt.2-1-2001 published on 14-3-2001 upholding the order of removal and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and grant him the relief of reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award dated 2-1-2001 made in I.D.No.187 of 1999 (old I.D.No.383 of 1997) on the file of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent No.2 is the Management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 27-1-1997. On 30-4-1997 when he was conducting bus on the route Medaram to Shadnagar, a check was exercised by the checking officials at stage No.5 and found certain cash and ticket irregularities. On the basis of a charge memo, a charge sheet dated 6-5-1997 was issued alleging that two individual batches (3+2), total 5 persons, found alighting at Midjil ex-stages 7 to 5 and the petitioner, having collected the requisite fare of Rs.2.50 ps each, at the boarding point itself, failed to issue tickets and hence obtained top punch tickets of Rs.2.50 ps and closed SR of all denominations upto stage No.6 without completing the issue of tickets. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the 1st respondent in I.D.No.187 of 1999 (old I.D.No.373 of 1997) . It was the case of the petitioner that he was in the process of issuing tickets and since there was a lot of luggage placed in the bus, he was not able to issue tickets immediately and this was, in fact, noticed by the T.T.Is and in spite of the same they have issued a charge memo illegally. Neither enquiry was properly conducted nor there was any evidence that he was guilty of the charges. Assuming that there was some misconduct on his part, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Respondent-Management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and asserting that the enquiry was properly conducted and the petitioner was given full and fair opportunity to defend himself. The charges are grave in nature. Petitioner having collected money failed to issue tickets, though the bus travelled two stages. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced on either side and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner. However, on behalf of the respondent-Management, though no oral evidence was adduced, the documents Exs.M1 to M16 were marked. On the basis of the material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was valid and the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever and as such dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner joined service on 27-1-1997 and the incident had taken place on 30-4-1997. There was no past misconduct attributed to the petitioner and the fact that the luggage had created some hurdle in the bus is not in dispute. Therefore, the explanation offered by the petitioner that there was some delay on his part in issuing tickets ought to have been accepted by the respondent-Corporation. Assuming that the charges were proved, no loss was caused to the Corporation and the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Per contra, Smt. B.G. Umadevi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, strenuously contended that the Award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 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 made available on record. I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was just, proper and valid and the charges were proved cannot be found fault with. However, the petitioner had hardly put in 3 months of service as on the date when the incident had taken place and he seems to be a novice; as such, it could be possible having collected the money, in the confusion, must have failed to issue tickets to those persons before they were found alighting at ex-stage No.5. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this being a first misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation could have taken a lenient view of the matter and at least one opportunity could have been given to him to mend his ways. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. To meet the ends of justice, the petitioner shall be reinstated into service afresh. Under the above circumstances, the Order of removal is liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh Conductor. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is not entitled for any continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. Petitioner shall earn his service from the date on which he joined duty on being reinstated in pursuance of this Order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 24-4-2008 prk