THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18193 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 16.12.2002 passed in I.D.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ananthapur, whereunder the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking a direction to the respondent to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits, was rejected in toto. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent No.1 is the management. It appears, the workman, who is an Ex-service man, was appointed as a casual conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 08.06.1993. While that being so, on 04.01.1999, while the workman was conducting the bus bearing No.AEZ 2754 on route Kadapa Machupalli Bus Stand – Obulampalli, a check was conducted by the checking officials and noticed certain cash and tickets irregularities committed by the workman. Thereupon, a charge sheet dated 27.01.1999 was issued to him enumerating the following charges: “1. For having issued 4 tickets of Rs.3/- denm., bearing Nos.486/535776, 727, 729 and 730 to 4 individual passengers who boarded your bus at Machupalli Bus- stand and bound for Nazirbeigpalli ex.stages 3 to 8 by tearing the tickets at stage No.8 as boarding place instead of punching them at stage No.3 as boarding place and 8 as alighting stage and thus you have created scope for reissuing them in later on by collecting them from the passengers while they were got down which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi-a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (conduct) Reg. 1973. 2. For having kept the 4 tickets of Rs.2-25 bearing Nos.125/620700 to 703 separately in loose condition and tickets from 125/620704 to 708 were missing which goes to say that you have issued these tickets to the passengers in the previous stages and accounted them in the SR and collected them from the passengers while they were getting down and kept these tickets in your hand tray in order to issue them in the subsequent stages while you were conducting the bus on route CDP- Machupalli Bus-stand to Obulampalli on 04.01.1999, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having failed to close the SR against stage No.5 though the vehicle reached at stage No.5 and hence the TTIs marked as ‘XXX’ in the SR against stage No.5 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C., Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. For having altered the closing number pertaining to Rs.3/- denm., as 482/533883 from 873 against stage No.8 in the SR bearing No.1893398, dated 19.12.1998 and reissued 7 tickets from 863 to 870 at stage No.8 and remaining 3 tickets at stage No.3 and thus you have committed fraud of Rs.30/- while you were conducting the same service on 19.12.1998, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C., Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963. 5. For having altered the closing number pertaining to Rs.2-25 denm., as 102/359629 from 632 against stage No.9 in the SR bearing No.1899332, dated 26.12.1998 and reissued 3 tickets 629 to 632 as stage No.11 and thus you have committed fraud of Rs.6-75 while you were conducting the service on 26.12.1998 which constituting misconduct under Reg.28(xxxiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C., Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter and after following the procedure as required under law, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 14.07.1999, removing the workman from service. Aggrieved thereby, the workman preferred appeal before the Deputy Chief Manager, Kadapa, but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 18.09.1999. Thereafter, the workman carried the matter in review to the Regional Manager, Kadapa, and the review was also rejected by order dated 03.11.1999. Subsequently, the workman raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, in I.D.No.3 of 2000. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the workman that he has not committed the alleged misconduct, that the charges leveled against him are false, that wrong punching of tickets was only due to mistake, that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not based on proper appreciation of the evidence and that only on assumptions and presumptions, the Enquiry Officer and the management had entertained a doubt and no individual should be punished on mere conjunctures. It was the case of the management before the Labour Court that the workman has indulged in the act of misappropriation, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief under Section 11-A of the Act. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the workman had indulged in alterations of S.R. and re-issuing of tickets, which is serious offence, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief under Section 11-A of the Act, and accordingly, by the impugned award dated 16.12.2002, dismissed the claim of the workman. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Enquiry Officer failed to take into consideration the material on record. He further submits that basing on the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, without seeing the material on record, passed the order removing the workman from service, which is illegal and arbitrary. He also submits that even assuming that there is some misconduct on the part of the workman, it does not warrant the punishment of removal from service. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-management submitted that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and found that the workman was guilty of the charges, as such, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, 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. Admittedly, the workman, who is an Ex-service man, was appointed into the service of the Corporation on 08.06.1993 and his services were regularized on 03.08.1993. Removal of the workman from the services of the Corporation on 14.07.1999, for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him, is not in dispute. The parawise remarks, which are placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, reveals that in a short span of six years of service, the workman was placed under suspension on two occasions previously for his involvement in cash and ticket irregularities and his increments were deferred on four occasions. This would show that the past conduct of the workman was not good and he was in the habit of committing serious cash and ticket irregularities. Even, in the present case, the substantial charges are that the workman issued four tickets of Rs.3/- denomination to four individual passengers, who boarded the bus at stage No.3 and bound for stage No.8, by tearing the tickets at stage No.8 as boarding place instead of punching them at stage No.3, and thus the workman has created scope for re-issuing those tickets by collecting them from the passengers at the time of getting down. Further, the workman failed to close the SR against stage No.5, though the bus reached Stage No.5, which constitutes grave misconduct on his part. All these would show that the misconduct committed by the workman is a pre-meditated activity. The enquiry is held to be valid and no error apparent on the face of the record is brought to the notice of this Court to interfere with the findings records by the Labour Court. The misconduct committed by the workman is grave in nature, therefore, the punishment of removal from service imposed on him cannot be said to be illegal. Apart from this, the past conduct of the workman is also not good so as to inspire the confidence of this Court to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 09.02.2011 v v