HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1902 of 2006 Date: February 17, 2011 Between: P. Sammaiah … Petitioner And 1. The Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court at Warangal, Rep. by its Presiding Officer and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1902 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is preferred by a former conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) calling in question the legality and validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal in I.D. No.126 of 2002 raised by him, aggrieved by the order passed on 22.12.2001 imposing punishment of removal from service by the Depot Manager, Parkal, Warangal District. 2. The petitioner was on duty on 02.5.2001 conducting a bus plying between Jaggaiahpet and Kodad. It was checked between stages 33 to 31. The Travelling Ticket Inspectors (TTIs) who checked the bus found four passengers, who boarded the bus at Jaggaiahpet, were carrying tickets bearing Nos.278/441339, 340, 43, 345 of Rs.9/- denomination. The conductor has collected the fare of Rs.9/- from these four passengers and issued these four tickets to them. The TTI found that these four tickets were sold in the first trip undertaken on 01.5.2001, the previous day, when the petitioner conducted another bus between Warangal-Vardannapet. In the Statistical Return he has entered these four tickets for the trip of 01.5.2001. Therefore, it is alleged against the petitioner that he has re-issued the four tickets, which were once sold by him the previous day itself. 3. At the domestic enquiry, the two TTIs viz., A. Rajaiah and S.K. Swamy were examined apart from the driver of the bus. The statement of the four witnesses is marked as Ex.M-11. The relevant statistical returns are also marked as Ex.M-6, Ex.M-7 and Ex.M-8. Upon an over all consideration of the evidence on record, the petitioner was found guilty of the principal charge of re-issuing the tickets of Rs.9/- denomination which were sold the previous day itself. Incidentally, the other charge that he has started the bus without closing the statistical return is also held as established. But however, as was noticed supra, the substantial part of the charge sheet rivets around the misconduct of re- issuance of four tickets by the petitioner. Agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, the Depot Manager imposed the punishment of removal from service on 22.12.2001. 4. The Labour Court had re-examined the entire evidence once more to ascertain as to there are any infirmities, both procedural and substantial, in holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. When once the Labour Court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence on record of the domestic tribunal to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge laid against him, it has declined to examine the plea of the petitioner that the punishment imposed was disproportionate. 5. On the other hand, the Labour Court relying upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, Rajastan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ghanshyam Sarma[1] wherein the Supreme Court has pointed out that though under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act the Labour Court has jurisdiction and power to substitute an appropriate punishment to the one imposed by the disciplinary authority, if the Labour Court is convinced that the punishment handed down is excessive, but however, pointed out that when the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect the fare therefor and then deposit the same with the Road Transport Corporation and if a conductor failed to do so, it would be a case of misplaced sympathy if any order of reinstatement is ordered substituting the punishment of dismissal, had held that the petitioner cannot seek reinstatement or imposition of any other punishment for basically lacking the requisite quantum of integrity on his part. 6. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that the domestic enquiry has been vitiated and that the inquiry report has not properly taken into account and consideration the statement made by the driver of the bus. Instead the enquiry officer has placed reliance upon the statement made by one of the TTIs who is enemically disposed towards the petitioner. Therefore, he seeks to challenge the findings recorded by the enquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary authority as perverse findings. The learned counsel further submits that the Labour Court has failed to notice this crucial aspect of the matter and instead misdirected itself in dismissing the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner herein. 7. Before the domestic tribunal both the TTIs, who checked the bus, have been examined. One of the TTIs viz., A. Rajaiah is the one who prepared the check report wherein it is specifically alleged that he found four of the passengers in the bus carrying tickets of denomination of Rs.9/-which were in fact shown and entered in the statistical return for the previous day namely 01.5.2001, evidencing their sale when the petitioner conducted the bus between Warangal-Vardannapet on 01.5.2001. The detailed particulars of these tickets are entered in the relevant statistical return for 01.5.2001 which was brought on record by domestic tribunal. The four passengers have given statement saying that they have boarded the bus at Jaggaiahpet to go up to Kodad and when they have tendered Rs.9/- to the petitioner, he has issued them these tickets. Therefore, burden heavily lies on the petitioner to explain as to how these four passengers could carry the tickets which were sold by him the previous day and, that too, while operating a different route namely Warangal to Vardannapet. This has not been explained away by the writ petitioner in any manner. This apart, the writ petitioner pointed out that S.K. Swamy, TTI, was inimically disposed towards him, whereas, it is A. Rajaiah another TTI who prepared the check report and obtained the signature of the writ petitioner thereon. The petitioner has not protested nor did give any acceptable explanation for the lapse on his part. Therefore, it is difficult to accede to the contention of the petitioner that the writ petitioner has been subjected to any hostility by the domestic tribunal. Similarly, it is also hard to accept the contention that the findings of the enquiry officer, which stood, accepted by the disciplinary authority as unsustainable ones. 8. I have not found any impropriety in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunals below, for me to interfere either with the findings recorded by the domestic Tribunal or the conclusions drawn by the Labour Court. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and hence it is dismissed, but however without costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: February 17, 2011. BSB [1] 2002 (1) LLJ 234