IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2493 of 2003 Between: Syed Mahaboob Sab S/o Syed Shaheb D.No.3/60., Near Railway Gate., Rayalacheruvu., Yadiki Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Rep. by its Chairman & Presiding Officer, Anantapur. 2 The Depot Manager.,A.P.S.R.T.C., Gooty Depot, Gooty, Anantapur 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 an order direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ after calling for the record quash the award in I.d.no.237/2000 dated 10-10-2002 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : W.P.No.2493 of 2003 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by an Award dated 10-10-2002 made in I.D.No.237 of 2000 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act’) was rejected and no relief was granted. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent No.2 is the Management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the respondent- A.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1978 and worked upto 10-8-2000, the day on which he was removed from service. According to the petitioner, on 5-2-2001, he was allotted the bus bearing No.AP10Z 2109 to be operated on Kurnool route. It was taken from the garage and was stopped at security check for routine check up. It is the case of the petitioner that though no untoward incident happened, he was placed under suspension by an Order dated 21-2-2000 and he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charge: “For having attempted to commit theft of E.6 Aluminum beeding pieces by hiding in your plastic bag, which was placed by you near driver’s seat at about 07.35 hrs. on 5.2.2000 to performing duty with the vehicle No.AP10Z 2109 while making out of the above vehicle from garage, the on duty security exercised regular check of the vehicle at main gate of Gooty garage and detected the theft constituting serious misconduct as per Regulation 28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations,1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, petitioner was removed from service on 10-8-2000. The appeal preferred by him was also rejected on 20-11-2001. Therefore, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.237 of 2000. It was the case of the petitioner that a false complaint was lodged against him under the misconception that he attempted to commit theft of ½ and 1 feet E-6 Aluminum beedings on 5-2-2000 while performing duty against vehicle No.AP10Z 2109. Even assuming that there was any misconduct, worth the name, the question of removing him from service does not arise. On a trivial charge of attempt to commit theft of alluminimum beedings, he was removed from service. According to him, neither the enquiry was properly conducted nor the charges were proved as required under the law. Therefore, the order of removal dated 10-8-2000, which was confirmed by the appellate authority, is liable to be set aside. Respondent-Management filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It was asserted that the enquiry was conducted as per law by giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and since there is ample evidence to prove the charge, the petitioner was held guilty of the same and the punishment of removal from service was imposed against him. The appellate authority also rightly confirmed the same. Therefore, the question of setting aside the order of removal does not arise. Before the Labour Court, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side. On the basis of the material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner attempted to commit theft of property of the Corporation, irrespective of its value. There is no need to show any mercy, since the charge is grave and the petitioner tried to screen the evidence by throwing away the bag containing the stolen property, and thus dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner had put in 22 years of unblemished service and some aluminium beedings were said to be found in the bag, which was placed near the seat of the driver, by the security personnel at the gate when the bus was going out of depot. Who had placed and how they were available there, the petitioner was not knowing and, in fact, he was innocent and was implicated in a false case of attempt to commit theft and ultimately, he was removed from service illegally. Even assuming that there is some such misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the value of the property does not go beyond Rs.40/- and the alluminium beedings are not new one, but they are all old and used and thrown away as scrap. Therefore, even assuming that the charge is proved, the punishment of removal from service, particularly when there is no past adverse remarks against the petitioner for the last more than 22 years, is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Whereas, Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, contended that the charge is very grave in nature and the act committed by the petitioner is nothing but theft of Corporation property and, therefore, once the charges were proved, there was no scope for reinstating such persons into service and as such, the only punishment that could have been imposed was removal from service and the same was imposed by the authorities. Labour Court rightly appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve any relief whatsoever and as such, the claim petition was rightly rejected. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 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. The fact that the petitioner had put in 22 years of unblemished service is not in dispute. The simple charge against the petitioner was that he attempted to commit theft of ½ and 1 feet alluminium beedings, which were said to be scrap material and worth between Rs.40/- and Rs.50/-. In fact, the existence of alluminimum beedings was proved, but who placed them behind the driver’s seat is not known. Of course, the presumption was drawn against the petitioner, since they were available behind his seat. Under those circumstances, the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charge. In a situation like this, the petitioner may be held guilty of the charge. But, when once the whole of his career was clean, he does not deserve the ultimate punishment of removal from service. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority missed this fact and the petitioner could have been punished with a lesser punishment than that of removal from service. Looking from any angle, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not properly exercised the powers vested in it under Section 11-A of the Act. It is always desirable, in a case of this nature, that the punishment should be proportionate. To meet the ends of justice, denial of back wages and other benefits would have been sufficient instead of removing the petitioner from service. As such, I am of the opinion that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be modified and is modified as under:: “In the result, the respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service from the date of joining in service till 10-8-2000. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for continuity of service from 10-8-2000 till the date of this Order i.e. 29-4-20008. Petitioner is also not entitled for claiming any back wages, other attendant benefits etc., for the period he was out of employment.” With the above modification of the impugned Award, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 29-4-2008 prk