THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.120 OF 2004 DATED 13TH NOVEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN P.Subramanyam … Petitioner and The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur. And others … Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.1443 OF 2004 DATED 13TH NOVEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN A.Govindha Reddy … Petitioner and The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur. And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.120 AND 1443 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are amenable to a conjoined adjudication. Hence, this common order. The petitioners in both these writ petitions worked as Conductors in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, ‘the APSRTC’). They were subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with collection of certain fake police warrants by them during the course of conducting their bus services. It appears that as per the procedure governing police warrants, whenever police personnel travel in the buses of the APSRTC, the Conductors are to collect such warrants from the police personnel and issue proper tickets to them. Thereafter, the warrants are remitted to the Assistant Depot Clerk along with cash receipts. While so, the allegation against the petitioners was that the warrants collected by them and handed over in the Depot were found to be fake warrants, thereby causing monetary loss to the APSRTC. Accordingly, they were placed under suspension and subjected to a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of the charges levelled against them. Thereupon, the petitioners were removed from service after duly following the procedure. The appeals and thereafter, the review petitions filed by them against the said orders of removal were also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners and several such similarly situated Conductors raised Industrial Disputes before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. So far as the petitioners in these two cases are concerned, they filed I.D.Nos.38 of 2002 and 39 of 2002 respectively. By the common Award dated 13.06.2003, the Labour Court disposed of I.D.Nos.38, 39,43, 48 and 121 of 2002 holding that there were no merits therein and accordingly dismissing the petitions. Hence, these writ petitions. It is brought to my notice that this common Award dated 13.06.203 was subjected to challenge in a separate writ petition, W.P.No.5089 of 2004 in so far as I.D.No.43 of 2003 is concerned and the matter was carried in appeal by way of W.A.No.1924 of 2005 which was heard by a Division Bench of this Court along with a batch of connected writ appeals pertaining to the same issue. By the common Judgment dated 28.07.2009, the Division Bench disposed of the batch of writ appeals, including W.A.No.1924 of 2005. A copy of the said Judgment is placed before me. After considering the material on record, the Division Bench opined that there was no evidence that the Conductors themselves produced the fake warrants and misappropriated the money. The Division Bench also accepted the stand of the Conductors that there was no possibility for them to know about the correctness or otherwise of the police warrants and that they simply relied upon the signatures of the Issuing Authority appearing on the warrants. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that one such similarly placed Conductor, who was the claimant in I.D.No.184 of 2000, had been given the lesser punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and held that the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the other Conductors was extreme. Accordingly, the Division Bench modified the punishment imposed upon the Conductors, setting aside the orders of removal from service; directing their reinstatement in service, if not already retired, and imposing the lesser punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The findings of the Division Bench would be squarely applicable to these cases also, as they stand on an identical footing. Smt.M.Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these writ petitions, stated that the petitioners in both the cases have already attained the age of retirement and therefore, there is no possibility of directing their reinstatement in service. Such being the state of affairs, the orders of removal from service passed against both the writ petitioners are set aside and the lesser punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is directed to be substituted therefor, which shall take effect from the date of the orders of the earlier punishment. However, they shall be granted continuity of service in view of the setting aside of the removal orders and the same shall be taken into account for reckoning their pensionary benefits after giving effect to the substituted punishment of withholding of increments. The APSRTC shall complete this exercise and make due payment to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 13th November, 2009. VGSR