IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22939 of 2000 Between: Allu Atchinaidu, S/o. Sanjeevi Naidu, Themarkanid Post, Seethanagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice - Chairman Cum Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Paravathipuram, Vizianagaram District. 4 The Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or orders more Particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set-aside the order dt.21.10.1999 I.D.No.85/96 in G.O.R.T.No.86, dt.13.1.2000 passed by the 4 the Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional of India and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KARRI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.APPAIAH SARMA The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner, who was working as a Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), has ﬁled this writ petition, questioning the award dated 21.10.1999 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.85 of 1996. By the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has conﬁrmed the orders of removal passed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 2. Facts leading to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under: The petitioner was initially engaged as a Conductor on 14.12.1987. When he was conducting the bus bearing No.AAZ-7569 on the route Parvathipuram to Jamadala on 30.07.1993, the checking oﬃcials of the Corporation exercised a check at stage-2, i.e. Pedabondapalli and served a charge memo on the petitioner alleging that he failed to observe the rule “issue and start”, that having collected a sum of Rs.2/- from a passenger towards ticket fare of Rs.1.50/-, he failed to issue ticket to him and that he reissued certain tickets which were already taken into account to four individual passengers. The petitioner submitted spot explanation to the said charges. Dissatisﬁed with the explanation oﬀered by him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was charge- sheeted under Ex.M.7, dated 13.08.1993, with the following charges: “1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ 2. For having collected a sum of Rs.2/- from a passenger towards the ticket fare of Rs.1.50 and failed to issue ticket to him who boarded the bus at Parvathipuram and found alighting at Pedabondapalli ex- stages 1 to 2. 3. For having reissued the ticket No.S.077/961329 to 330 and 344 and 345 of Rs.2.75 denomination S4 (which were already taken into account in the 3rd and 4th single, i.e. stage 4 and 4 to respectively) to four individual passengers who boarded the bus at Parvathipuram and bound for Bandalappi ex-stages 1 to 4 duly collecting the requisite fare of Rs.11/- from them at the Boarding point itself.” 4. For having failed to show the tickets issued bearing Nos.055/569174 to 175 of Rs.3.50 p.s. deno. E.2 in the SR even though you have issued tickets to a batch of two passengers who boarded the bus at Parvathipuram and bound for Jamadala ex-stages 1 to 5.” 3. In view of the denial of charges framed against the petitioner, a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry oﬃcer. The enquiry oﬃcer has ﬁnally submitted his ﬁndings in the enquiry report under Ex.M- 4. Based on the ﬁndings recorded by the enquiry oﬃcer, by issuing cause notice, and by considering the explanation ﬁled by the petitioner, an order of removal was passed against him. 4. Questioning the said order of removal, the petitioner herein has ﬁled an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.85 of 1996. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was let, but however, documents - Exs.M.1 to M.14 were marked on behalf of the Corporation. On behalf of the petitioner-workman, no documents were marked. The Tribunal, while re- appreciating the evidence on record, held that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 6. In this writ petition, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though there was no cogent evidence on record, the Tribunal passed an order of removal against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges leveled against the petitioner and therefore the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation that the Tribunal, while upholding the validity of the domestic enquiry, had further gone into the evidence on record and recorded ﬁndings that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved, and, therefore it cannot be said that the award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. 8. I have perused the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. The ﬁrst charge leveled against the petitioner is that he did not follow the rule “issue and start”, the purpose of which is to facilitate the Conductor to issue tickets to all the passengers who board the bus at the boarding point itself. The passenger himself gave a statement to the eﬀect that though the petitioner collected amount from him, he had not issued any ticket and the petitioner did not choose to make a request to summon the said passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal, observing that the statement of the said passenger is uncontroverted, held that the said charge stands proved. The second charge leveled against the petitioner is that though he had collected Rs.2/- from a passenger towards ticket fare of Rs.1.50/-, he failed to issue ticket to the passenger. The said passenger in his statement before the checking oﬃcials stated that though he had paid Rs.2/- to the petitioner, he had not issued any ticket. With regard to the third charge, i.e. re-issue of certain tickets, the Tribunal observed that the workman stated in his explanation that he did not issue the said tickets at all. Therefore, the Tribunal held that non-issue of tickets by itself amounts causing loss to the Corporation and also dereliction of duties. With regard to the fourth charge, it is to be seen that the petitioner failed to show issue of ticket bearing Nos.055/569174 to 175 of Rs.3.50 p.s. denomination in the Statistical Return. The Tribunal, on this charge, observed that the petitioner himself admitted of not closing the S.R., after having issued two tickets to the passengers and further held that the apprehension of the Corporation that the said tickets may be utilized afterwards cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal, by appreciating the evidence on record, held that the charges leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature and all the said charges are proved. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges cannot be accepted for the reason that even on earlier occasions, i.e. right from the year 1989, the petitioner was involved in several cash and ticket irregularities and though he was punished suitably, he has been involving in misdemeanors. The punishment, imposed by the management in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not disproportionate and that the punishment of removal from service is the just and reasonable and proportionate to the proven misconduct. The disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-ﬁnding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are vested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. Having regard to the serious charges levelled against the petitioner, which are proved in the departmental inquiry, it cannot be said that the punishment of removal imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not ﬁnd any valid ground to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 11. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. September 19, 2008 MRR