THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.2084 OF 2002 Date: 05.08.2011 Between: Mohd. Shoukat Ali …..Petitioner And The Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer and others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.2084 OF 2002 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner who is a former Conductor in Hayathnagar depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), is seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the award dated 27-9-2001 passed in I.D.No.214 of 2000 by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. 2. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against the petitioner on the following two charges: 1. “For having issued unconcerned tickets No.031/885702 of Rs.2-25 Ps. to a passenger who boarded the bus at the Boats Club stage No.13 and found alighting at Nampally stage No.10 in spite of collecting the requisite fare of Rs.2-25 Ps. from him which constitutes misconduct in terms of regulation No.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For being in possession of the following unconcerned tickets to the S.R. and way bill bearing S.R.No.A1/19992938 and way bill No.0632/13797117, dt.11-5-97, 056/141166 to 168 of Rs.1-50 Ps. denomination 023/428729 to 731 of Rs.3- 00 denomination 035/273216, 335 to 339 of Rs.4-00 denomination, 036/279500 to 503 and 511 of Rs.4-00 deno., 024/823986 & 987 of Rs.5-00 den., 027/827032 to 034, 038 & 039, 043 & 044, 053 to 058 of Rs.5-00 den., (The above tickets are not supplied to you along with way bill No.632/13797117, dt.11-5-97) which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.” 3. After receiving explanation of the petitioner and after conducting an enquiry, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 17-11-1997, removed him from service. That order of removal was confirmed by the appellate authority and also the revisional authority. Thereafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute i.e. I.D.No.214 of 2000 and that was also dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal confirming the order of punishment of removal. Questioning that award, the present writ petition is filed. 4. From the two charges extracted supra, it may be noted that the first charge relates to issuance of unconcerned ticket to a passenger after collecting the fare. The second charge relates to possession of unconcerned tickets of various denominations and it is mentioned in the charge that the said tickets were not supplied by the authorities concerned to the petitioner. 5. The disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority considered the matter and concluded that both the charges have been proved and the Tribunal also after considering the material on record concluded that the said charges have been proved. 6. Sri S.M.Subhan, the learned counsel for petitioner argued the matter at length, but nothing is brought to my notice to conclude that the above findings of the Tribunal are unjustified. Hence, there is no scope to interfere in this matter regarding the merits of the case. 7. However coming to the quantum of punishment, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the first charge relates to collection of fare of only Rs.2-25 Ps. which is a very meagre amount and therefore, the punishment of removal from service is highly disproportionate and this Court should consider whether the petitioner can be awarded a lesser punishment and reinstate him into service without any consequential benefits. It may then be noted that the second charge also relates to possession of unconcerned tickets, but the petitioner was not in a position to explain how he came into possession of those tickets and an inference was drawn by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority and Tribunal to the effect that he was collecting fares by issuing unconcerned tickets. The Tribunal also confirmed the said findings. Sri S.M.Subhan further argued that since the first charge relates to a meagre amount and second charge does not show any collection of fares, this Court should atleast consider imposition of lesser punishment. 8. It should be noted that the Tribunal considered the aspect of punishment, but it relied upon the Supreme Court decision given in Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited etc. Vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangh etc.[1] and held that the punishment of removal from service for the above charges was the proper punishment. In the said decision it has been held that if an act of misappropriation is proved, whether the amount is small or not does not make any difference and the authority should not show any leniency of reinstating the employee into service. That being the legal position regarding punishment as laid down by the Supreme Court in a case of misappropriation, it follows that this Court has also no discretion in the matter. 9. Sri Subhan relied upon a decision of this Court given in S.Pulla Reddy Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Cuddapah District and another[2] (order in W.P.No.2182/1988) and a decision of the Supreme Court given in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others[3] and argued that basing on the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions, this Court can consider the case of the petitioner and reduce the punishment. It is difficult to accept his contention. 10. It may be noted that in S.Pulla Reddy’s case, second referred to supra, the judgment was delivered on 4-9-1996 and of course leniency was shown even in a case where a conductor has reissued the tickets which were once sold. The facts there were different and it is easily distinguishable on facts also. The said decision was rendered prior to the Supreme Court decision first referred to supra. Hence, this decision cannot help the petitioner. 11. Then turning to the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others case, third referred to supra, it may be noted that, that was a case where the Conductor therein has issued short distance tickets in stead of issuing the correct long distance tickets and that was not a case of out right collection of fares and issuing unconcerned tickets or not issuing tickets at all. In such a situation, a lesser punishment was approved. That is not the case here on facts and therefore, the said decision is also distinguishable on facts and cannot help the petitioner. 12. Sri S.M.Subhan vehemently argued that the tickets fare collected is only Rs.2-25 Ps. which is mentioned in the first charge and therefore, leniency should be shown and he also pointed out that both the charges relate to unconcerned tickets. It may be noted that a conductor possessing unconcerned tickets and issuing one such ticket to a passenger after collecting fare is a serious misconduct. Hence having regard to the proposition laid down in the Supreme Court decision first referred to supra, this Court has little discretion in the matter and the said decision has to be followed. In these circumstances, I regret that I am unable to agree with Sri S.M.Subhan in not considering his plea for a lesser punishment. 13. There are no merits in this petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 5th August, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.2084 OF 2002 DATE: 05.08.2011 [1] 2000 LAB.I.C.3302 [2] 1997(2) ALD 558 [3] (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 450