IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5700 of 2000 Between: N.Kishan S/o.N.Kristaiah R/o.Rangampet, Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & Presiding Officer Labour Court, Indistrial Tribunal - I, Chandravihar Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager APSRTC Jeedimetla Depot, R.R.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 issue a writ or direction or orders particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in ID.NO. 76/1999 Dt.31/12/1999 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad set aside the same as illegal and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all attendant benefits and back wages and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 31.12.1999 passed in I.D.No.76 of 1999 by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein was appointed on 18.06.1991 as a conductor in the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and was attached to Jeedimetla Depot, Ranga Reddy District. When the petitioner was on duty on 16.02.1996 on the bus bearing No.AP9Z 6865 on the route Secunderabad to Narsapur, a check was exercised at stage No.6 by the checking officials, who found certain cash and ticket irregularities committed by the petitioner. Basing on the report of the checking officials a charge sheet dated 23.02.1996 was issued to the petitioner by framing two charges, which read as under. Charge No.1. “For having failed to issue tickets, despite collecting the requisite fare amount of Rs.85/- @ Rs.8.50 ps. Each) at the boarding point itself, to a batch of ten (10) passengers, who were found travelling without tickets from Secunderabad Station to Gummedidala, ex- stages 1 to 9, each constitutes a misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” 2) “For having failed to observe the Rule “Issue and start” on route Secunderabad Station to Narsapur, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” Though the petitioner filed explanation denying the allegations, having not satisfied with the same, the respondents have proceeded to conduct enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry, recorded the oral and documentary evidence and submitted enquiry report holding that both the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. Based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, after giving further show cause notice for the proposed punishment and after receiving the explanation of the petitioner, the respondents have passed final orders removing him from service. Though there is a departmental appeal and review as per the Regulations, the petitioner did not avail such remedies, but questioned the order of removal by filing an application before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act”). Before the Tribunal a memo was filed on behalf of the petitioner without disputing the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted and requested to consider his case under Section 11- A of the I.D. Act. There was no further evidence let in before the Tribunal and only documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the management under Exs.M.1 to M.17. The Tribunal having referred to the evidence on record and the gravity of the charges confirmed the order of removal. This writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that in the absence of any acceptable evidence, the enquiry officer recorded the evidence holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. It is also the case of the petitioner that the punishment imposed against him is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation. In this case, a check has taken place at stage No.6. The checking officials have noticed ten ticketless passengers. When they were questioned, they stated that they have already paid the fare to the conductor, in spite of the same tickets were not issued to them. Though at the spot explanation the petitioner has denied receipt of fare from the ticketless passengers, but in the domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer has categorically found that the petitioner having collected the fare of Rs.85/- from ten passengers, did not issue tickets to them. It is also to be noticed that the checking officials have found that the petitioner has closed the SR in the tray of all denominations up to the point of check without issuing tickets. Having regard to the evidence on record, particularly the statements recorded from the passengers, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer either perverse or illegal so as to interfere with the same. Even with regard to proportionality, it is to be seen that the petitioner having collected the fare from ten passengers @ Rs.8.50 ps. denomination each caused loss of revenue of Rs.85/- to the corporation. In view of the same it cannot be said that the order of removal is shokingly disproportionate to the charges framed against him. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 2nd March, 2009 Js.