HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26694 of 2006 DATE:01.06.2010 Between: E. Laxmi Dass ... Petitioner and The Regional Manager (HRC), APSRTC, J.B.S., Secunderabad, and another ... Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26694 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed against the Award dated 07.03.2006 made by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.93 of 2004, whereunder the application, filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 disputing his removal from service and seeking his reinstatement into service, was dismissed, upholding the removal of the petitioner from service. Heard both sides. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 04.06.1979, and he was removed from service, as he was found responsible for committing cash and ticket irregularities. According to the respondents, on 08.01.2003 while the petitioner was conducting bus No.347 on Route No.37 AL between Secunderabad Station and E.C.I.L., the Regional Enforcement Squad, Hyderabad, exercised check at Stage No.7 at AOC Gate at 7-40 hours and detected certain serious cash and ticket irregularities, such as, the petitioner having collected the requisite fare from two different passengers issued ticket bearing No.325/712360 for Rs.5/- denomination and ticket bearing No.144/936189 for Rs.5-50 ps. denomination and both the tickets are found to be already issued in the up journey on the previous day. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet and having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, regular enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, after completing the formalities, removed the petitioner from service. It is the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that he did not issue the tickets held by the passengers at the time of check, and in the spot explanation itself, he has categorically stated that he never issued the tickets and the checking officials have not checked the cash if any collected by him. Had the checking officials checked the cash, it would have been revealed that the charges were false. Further, one of the passengers, namely P.Goutham Kumar, stated that he was traveling from L.B.Nagar to Secunderabad. Whereas the bus was being conducted from Secunderabad to ECIL. Thus, the very statement of the said passenger was false. Therefore, this would show that the said passenger did not travel in the bus. The Disciplinary Authority and the Labour Court, after examining the entire material placed before them, found the petitioner guilty of the charges that he has re-issued the tickets which were already accounted for the previous day. This is a case of serious mis- conduct of re-issue of tickets. There is no explanation from the petitioner as to why he has not issued tickets for the two passengers who were traveling in the bus. The petitioner somehow wanted to escape and submitted explanation which is not satisfactory. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that neither the enquiry was properly conducted nor the charges were proved or the Labour Court has not properly looked into the evidence, cannot be said to be correct. On the other hand, the Labour Court has considered all the material placed before it meticulously and rightly came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service is proper. Para 7 of the impugned order reads as under: “I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the counsel for either side and the material available on record. On perusal of Ex.M.9, Ticket Travelling Inspector’s check sheet bearing No.1644948 dt.8.1.2003 shows the details of checking conducted by the checking officials. At the time of checking there were total 17 passengers out of them two passengers are holding a ticket bearing No.325/712360 for Rs.5/- and 144/936189 for Rs.5-50 ps and on verification of those ticket numbers with the S.R. Ex.M.4 vide S.R.No.3847133 it was detected by the checking officials that those two tickets are not pertaining to the ticket tray of the checking made. On the other hand, it is found that they are related to the previous day as per Ex.M.1 to M.3. The ticket tray are tallied with the S.Rs Ex.M.1 to M.3. The passengers statement Ex.M.5 are clearly shows the ticket numbers which they were holding at the time of check and Ex.M.5 also duly attested by the petitioner. The explanation given by the petitioner vide Ex.M.6 shows that the passengers are not related to its bus which cannot be believed. The passengers are found in the bus and their statements also recorded by the checking officials. Ex.M.7 is the charge memo issued to the petitioner on the spot and the spot explanation given by the petitioner is also found to be not satisfactory and Ex.M.8 cover containing confiscated tickets includes two top punched tickets and two reissued tickets. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide Ex.M.10 dt.15.1.2003. A charge sheet was also issued vide Ex.M.11. The petitioner submitted his representation to the respondent vide Ex.M.12. Ex.M.13 is the requisition of documents to the petitioner. Ex.M.14 is the nomination of enquiry officer and the enquiry officer recorded the statement of D.Y.Reddy vide Ex.M.17 and Sri Prashant vide Ex.M.18 and Jagan vide Ex.M.19. Ex.M.20 is the statement of the petitioner. Ex.M.21 is the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. As per the report of the enquiry officer Ex.M.21, the charges 1 to 3 are proved. The findings of the enquiry officer are well founded and supported by oral and documentary proof. The irregularity committed by the petitioner for re-issuing of tickets which have been related to the previous day and the same was already accounted is nothing but to cause loss to the corporation and to the personal gain to the petitioner. The petitioner did not close the S.R. from Secunderabad Station to AOC gate and it is apprehended that on seeing of the SRs. The respondent called for the objections/comments of the petitioner vide Ex.M.22 and Ex.M.23 is the objections submitted by the petitioner. The objections raised by the petitioner is not sustainable and as such a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for removal proposing the penalty of removal and on receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner vide Ex.M.25 the respondent issued proceedings Ex.M.26 dt.16.5.2003, wherein the petitioner removed from service. The appeal preferred by the Divisional Manager and Review application made to the Regional Manager is also rejected vide Ex.M.27 and M.28. The respondent further relied on Ex.M.29 service record. It shows that the petitioner is not having a clean record of his service. He was already punished several times. The details of the service record shows that for four times he was warned and his increments are deferred for 8 times, finally he was placed under suspension for committing cash and ticket irregularities. The learned counsel for petitioner requested to take lenient view considering that the petitioner has lot his job and his family members are put to hard ship and starving for food. Therefore, in my considered view, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service is proper and I do not find any ground to interfere with the punishment awarded by the respondent.” In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in dismissing the petition, calling for interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ C.V. RAMULU, J 1st June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26694 of 2006 (Dismissed) 1st June, 2010 CBS