HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2053 OF 2006. DATED 4th February, 2011. BETWEEN K.Narsaiah …Petitioner and The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, rep. by its Presiding Officer and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2053 OF 2006. ORDER: The unsuccessful petitioner/workman in I.D.No.67 of 2002 assails the NIL Award dated 19.10.2004 passed therein by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. He seeks a consequential direction to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to reinstate him in service as a Conductor with all consequential benefits. The petitioner entered the service of the APSRTC as a Conductor in the month of January, 1995. While he was conducting the bus service on the route Chintalapoodi to Sathupally on 27.4.2001 a check was made at stage No.9/8, and certain cash and ticket irregularities were allegedly detected. The same resulted in initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner on the following charges: 1.For having violated the rule of issue of tickets and start, which amounts to mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi)(a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to issue ticket to a lady passenger having boarded the bus at Chintalapoodi and found alighting without ticket at Mallaigudem ex-stages 9 to 8 despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.3/- at their boarding point itself which amounts to misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28 (vi) (a) & (x) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having failed to issue ticket to a lady passenger having boarded the bus at Chintalapoodi and bound for Yendapally ex-stages 9 to 6. Despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.5/- from the said ticketless lady passenger at their boarding pointing itself which amounts to misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi)(a) & (x) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963”. 4. For having failed to close the ticket tray numbers of all denomination in the SR against stage No.8 at the time of check hence the TTIs marked cross which amounts to misconduct in terms of Reg.28(v()(a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963. Dissatisfied with his explanation dated 10.5.2001, the APSRTC instituted a domestic enquiry in the matter. As the Enquiry Officer found against the petitioner on all the charges, basing upon the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued show cause notice of removal dated 27.8.2001, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Dissatisfied with the same, the second respondent removed the petitioner from service under order dated 10.09.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same met with failure. He thereupon invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) by way of the subject Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court, upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing on either side, and appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was clearly established upon the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The substance of the explanation filed by the petitioner to the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet, is that the act of the petitioner issuing tickets to the passengers was not completed by the time of check and the same is in process, that the petitioner did not close the S.R. as the issuance of tickets was not completed and that he has no malafide intention to defraud the Corporation. The Labour Court took note of the fact that when the petitioner was in the act of issuing tickets at stage no. 9, nothing prevented him to issue tickets immediately after collecting fare, and that on seeing the checking staff, he might have started issuing tickets. That being so, his statement that, had the check not been taken place for a while, the petitioner would have issued the tickets did not hold water. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to attack the disciplinary proceedings on merits in addition to raising various technical grounds. It is his case that the findings recorded by the enquiryofficer were perverse being opposed to the evidence on record. Various factual aspects were set out in support of his contentions. The learned counsel strenuously contended that the check was exercised by the checking officials at second request stage in between Stage Nos. 8 and 9, whereupon the distance in between the three request stages is too short, and that, the alleged check was conducted before reaching stage No.8 and therefore after completion of the tickets issued at the request stages, S.R., was not closed. He lastly submitted that the amount involved being a meager sum of Rs.3/-, the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, on the other hand, pressed into service judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases in REGIONAL MANAGER, Vs. GHANSHYAM SHARMA, {(2002) 10 SCC 330}, and, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC Vs. A.T.MANE, {2005)3 SCC 254} in support of his contention that in cases involving misappropriation or loss of revenue to the employer, the amount involved is irrelevant and therefore, the doctrine of proportionality could not be invoked on such count. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the material on record clearly demonstrates the culpability of the petitioner and therefore the matter did not warrant interference on the sole ground that the Award of the Labour Court was not elegantly drafted. It is needless to state, this Court would not sit as a court of appeal while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to punitive action taken by a competent Disciplinary Authority. As held by the Supreme Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S.SREE RAMA RAO (AIR 1963 SC 1723) , it is not the function of the High Court in a writ petition to review the evidence and arrive at an independent finding on such evidence. It is only when the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it was so wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could ever arrive at such conclusion or on similar grounds, interference was warranted. It is needless to state that the Labour Court is normally the final authority as regards the appreciation of the facts in the Industrial Dispute, The scope of writ Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in exercise of judicial review over disciplinary action is limited. In view of the above settled principles, the first submissions of the learned Counsel, do not hold much water. As regards the last submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is well settled that it is not only the amount involved but the mental set-up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. In REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.SRTC v. HOTI LAL{(2003)3 SCC 605}, the observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are apposite: “10. ……… If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. ………” In V.RAMANA v. A.P.SRTC {2005) 7 SCC 338} the Supreme Court held that it is the responsibility of the conductors to collect correct fare charges from the passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. They act in fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. The Court pointed out that a Conductor holds a post of trust and a person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service. The Supreme Court further held that quantum of the amount involved in the misappropriation was inconsequential while deciding the proportionality of the punishment. In DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs.A.T.MANE {(2005) 3 SCC 254), the Supreme Court held that when an employee is found guilty of misappropriating a Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal and in such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefor with the quantum of punishment. In U.P.SRTC v. NANHE LAL KUSHWAHA {(2009) 8 SCC 772}, the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of removal from service of a Conductor on the ground of failure to issue tickets. The Supreme Court placing reliance on HOTI LAL (supra) case observed that as the respondent was appointed as a Conductor it was not the amount which would be material for the purpose of determining the quantum of punishment. I n U.P.SRTC v. SURESH CHAND SHARMA {(2010) 6 SCC 555}, the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a Conductor who had collected the fare but failed to issue tickets. The Supreme Court did not accept the submission advanced on behalf of the Conductor that for embezzlement of a petty amount, punishment of dismissal was not justified. The Court pointed out that it is not the amount embezzled by a delinquent employee but the mens rea to misappropriate public money which was of relevance. In DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.SRTC v. B.SWAMY {(2008) 2 SCC 396}, the Conductor was charged with the misconduct of pocketing the ticket fare while issuing lesser denomination tickets to illiterate passengers. He was therefore removed from service. In this scenario, the Supreme Court observed: “8. A conductor of a bus enjoys the faith reposed in him. He accepts the responsibility of honestly collecting fares from the passengers after issuing proper tickets and is obliged to account for the money so collected. If conductors were to be dishonest in the performance of their duties, it would cause serious pecuniary loss to the employer. The High Court was therefore, not justified in observing that the management gave "excess gravity" to the offence. 9. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was not justified in characterising the order of the management as one induced by exaggeration of the gravity of the offence. The conductor performs only the duty of issuing tickets to the passengers and accounting for the fare collected from the passengers to the management. If he is dishonest in the performance of his duties, he is guilty of serious misconduct and the gravity of the misconduct cannot be minimized by the fact that he was not earlier caught indulging in such dishonest conduct. There is no guarantee that he had not acted dishonestly in the past as well which went undetected. Even one act of dishonesty amounting to breach of faith may invite serious punishment.” (emphasis is mine) In the light of the afore-stated established legal position, there can be no doubt that substantiating the charge of misappropriation of ticket fare by the Conductor would be sufficient to justify his termination from service. Such occurrence, would inevitably lead to loss of confidence in the Conductor by the APSRTC. In such circumstances, no lenient view can be taken in the matter by Courts. The NIL Award dated 19.10.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No. 67 of 2002 therefore does not warrant interference by this Court and is accordingly confirmed. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed, but without costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 4th February, 2011. Msnro