IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 19471 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Tuni Depot, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 2 G.R.S.S.N.Raju, Kakivaripeta (Geruna), Tuni, East Godavari 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling or the records relating to I.D.No.431 of 1995 dated 16- 4-1998 of the 1st Respondent and quash the same and the said I.D. is published in GORt.No.1327 dated 1-8-1998 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.A.RAZAK The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short – ‘the Corporation’) through its Depot Manager, Tuni, East Godavari District, questioning the validity of the award of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.431 of 1995 dated 16-04-1998. The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent-workman was working as a Booking Clerk in Tuni Depot of the Corporation and he was in-charge of issuing tickets at Lova point to the One Man Service which was being operated from Lova to Tuni. On 27-05-1993, when the last trip of such One Man Service was being operated from Lova to Tuni, the workman issued tickets, closed the Auxiliary Way Bill, followed and travelled in the bus. The checking oﬃcials, who inspected the bus at Tuni, found some cash and ticket irregularities and recorded the statements of workman and passengers. The checking oﬃcials vide their special report to the Depot Manager also alleged that at the time of inspection the workman did not cooperate and caused inconvenience to them. Based on the inspection report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman and a charge sheet was issued by framing the following charges. “1. For having violated the Rules of ‘one man operation’ in closing the Auxilary Way Bill and in Despatch of the Vehicle No.AAZ-7029 at Lova Point on 27.5.93, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28(xvii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having collected an amount of Rs.21-50ps. from a batch of 5 adults and 2 chargeable children and Rs.14/- from another batch of 4 passengers, at the boarding point itself, all boarded at Lova and failed to issue tickets to all the above passengers till the point of check, i.e. Bus Station, Tuni, while following in the vehicle AAZ-7029 to Tuni on 27.5.93, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For your failure to enter the ticket issue particulars of the last trip in the SR which you were following in the vehicle AAZ-7029 on the route Lova-Tuni on 27.5.93, to Tuni after closing the Booking at Lova Point and after having over the Auxilary Way Bill to the Driver, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28(xvii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. For your refusal to sign in the MTD-43/R and also refusal to attest the check particulars in the SR in the prescribed column, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (viii) (xvii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 5. For having instigated the co-workers at Tuni alighting point against the TTIs at the time of check on 27.5.93 as mentioned above, thus causing inconvenience to complete the checking formalities and non-serving of charge memo to you on the spot which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28(viii) (xvii)(xviii)(xxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Reg., 1963.” When the workman denied the charges framed against him, regular enquiry was ordered by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer and the inquiry oﬃcer on conclusion of the enquiry held that all the ﬁve charges framed against the workman are proved. Based on such enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice of removal from service and, on receipt of explanation, passed orders removing him from service. The workman was unsuccessful before the appellate and review authorities. Ultimately, the workman challenged the order of his removal from service by raising an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.431 of 1995. Before the Tribunal, the workman did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf and the Corporation also did not adduce any oral evidence but marked Exs.M.1 to M.19. The Tribunal, while recording the ﬁnding that except the Charge No.3 all other charges framed against the workman are not proved, modiﬁed the punishment of removal from service to stoppage of one increment with cumulative eﬀect and ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Corporation is that though there is clinching evidence on record to prove all the charges framed against the workman the Tribunal has interfered with the orders of his removal from service and the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal are mere presumptions. The Tribunal also failed to consider the ﬁndings recorded during the domestic enquiry. It is further submitted that in any event, in view of the serious misconduct alleged against the workman, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any back wages. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman contended that the disciplinary proceedings against the workman were initiated mainly with regard to charge No.3 and it is clear from the statement of one of the passengers by name Nagaraju that the eleven passengers did not pay any amount to the workman and they forcibly gained entry into the bus and they were in intoxication. It is further submitted that the workman, after his reinstatement, also retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation and 50% of the back wages are also paid to him. From a reading of charge Nos.1 to 3 it is clear that they were framed mainly with regard to the cash and ticket irregularities. Though in charge Nos.4 and 5 certain allegations are made with regard to his behaviour during the inspection, no checking oﬃcial was examined to prove those allegations. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal correctly held that the charge Nos.4 and 5 are not proved. With regard to the Auxilary Way Bill being maintained in the One Man Service referred to in charge No.1 is concerned, it is known procedure that the Booking Clerk will issue tickets at the starting point and will handover the duly ﬁlled Auxilary Way Bill to the Driver so as to handover the same to the concerned authorities at the destination point. Though the Corporation framed a charge with regard to the Auxilary Way Bill, it failed to produce the same before the Tribunal to prove the said aspect and so the Tribunal correctly held that the charge is not proved. To prove charge No.2 which is a main charge in the disciplinary proceedings for having collected an amount of Rs.21-50ps from a batch of 5 adults and 2 chargeable children and Rs.14/- from another batch of 4 passengers at the boarding point itself i.e. at Lova and failed to issue tickets to them till the point of check, the Corporation produced the statements of passengers recorded at the time of inspection before the Tribunal. The explanation oﬀered by the workman in this regard is that those passengers were in intoxication and forcibly entered into the vehicle. A perusal of the statements of the passengers shows that the 11 passengers were in two groups and that the workman collected fare from them but failed to issue tickets to them. The evidence adduced to prove charge No.2 coupled with the admission of workman on charge No.3 clearly goes to show that the workman collected fare from those passengers but did not issue tickets to them. Merely because one of those passengers was in intoxication and was creating nuisance at the time of inspection and one of the passengers stated that the workman did not collect fare from those passengers, the Tribunal, even without reference to the statements of other passengers, held the charge No.2 as not proved contrary to the evidence and material on record. So, I hold the workman also guilty of charge No.2. In normal course, it is a case where the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the punishment aspect, but however, as it is not in dispute that the workman has retired from service on 31-07-2007 on attaining the age of superannuation and he was already paid 50% of the back wages pursuant to the order of this Court in WPMP No.24394 of 1999 dated 16-09-1999, I deem it appropriate to modify the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, while conﬁrming the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative eﬀect and the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service as awarded by the Tribunal, I hold that the workman is entitled to 50% of the back wages only. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modiﬁed and the writ petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th October 2008 CVRK