THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.12129 of 1999 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to I.D.No.76 of 1998 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was dismissed confirming the order of removal passed by the respondent-Management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Respondent-Corporation in the year 1998 and he served for more than 20 years without any blemish. While that being so, when the petitioner was conducting the Bus from Hyderabad to Mumbai on 1.9.1997, at about 6.45 a.m., the Regional Enforcement Squad, Karimnagar exercised check and detected certain cash and ticket irregularities and framed the following charges: “1. For having failed to observe the rule of issue tickets close the S.R. and start the vehicle, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employee’s (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to issue tickets, despite collecting the requisite fare amount of Rs.52/- each totally Rs.260/- at their boarding point itself i.e. Pune to a batch of five passengers who were found traveling without tickets from Pune to Mumbai ex- stages 27 to 37 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi) (a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employee’s (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having failed to close the ticket tray numbers of all denominations against the stage Nos.29 and 31 in S.R.No.A4/2373935 dated 31.8.1997 till the time of check which took place at stage No.29/31 hence the TTIs have marked as ‘XX’ in the S.R. which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employee’s (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having been insubordinate towards Checking Officials during the course of check by not receiving and acknowledging the charge memo No.AO/0763182 dated 1.9.1997 which was later served on you on 10.9.1987 in Depot which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (viii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employee’s (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation for the same. Having not satisfied with the explanation, a detailed enquiry was conducted as per the Regulations of the Corporation and ultimately, petitioner was removed from service by order of the second respondent dated 8.1.1998. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal before the Regional Manager, however the same was dismissed. Therefore, petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. It was the case of the petitioner that after the Bus started at Stage No.27 (Pune), no body got into the Bus till stage No.29/31, at which place five passengers have entered into Bus and the check took place at stage No.31/32. Therefore, petitioner could not issue tickets, hence, he cannot be said to be guilty of charge by not following the rule of “Issue and Start”. As soon as, passengers entered into the Bus, they were quarrelling with the petitioner with regard to the actual fare payable and in the meantime the check was exercised. Even as per the evidence of the service drivers and two independent passengers, the five passengers boarded the Bus at outskirts of Lonawala village that means stage No.29/31. One of the independent passengers also stated about this fact. Therefore, the statement of the five passengers ought not to have been believed by the Enquiry Officer and Depot Manager. The passengers statements were obtained by checking officials under duress. The said statements were not written by the passengers and their addresses were also not obtained. Their ticket numbers were also not recorded. Petitioner was not inclined to attest the false statement and the Jeep Driver T.B.Singh affixed his signature as per the instructions of the checking officials, which is not reliable. However, the version of the petitioner was not believed and the statements of the passengers were taken into consideration and he was removed from service. The Labour Court found that the enquiry conducted by the Respondent-Management was valid and further proceeded to uphold the punishment of removal passed by the second respondent-Depot Manager, as confirmed by the Regional Manager, and dismissed the I.D. Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that if the petitioner had really collected money, there is no evidence to show that the money was available in the cash bag. At first instance, the checking officials ought to have checked the cash bag and then come to conclusion that the petitioner collected money, but not issued tickets. In this case, such a procedure was not followed and the passengers were not examined in domestic enquiry. I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner. The charges are grave in nature and the petitioner having collected fare of Rs.52/- from each of the passengers, failed to issue tickets to five passengers, who traveled from Pune to Mumbai, ex- stages 27 to 37. Therefore, no interference can be made into the award passed by the Labour Court, confirming the removal order passed by the Respondent Corporation. However, this is a case where no previous misconduct has been attributed against the petitioner. The petitioner, before his removal by order dated 8.1.1999, had worked for about 20 years as a Conductor. Therefore, I am of the opinion that while upholding the award passed by the Labour Court, I deem it appropriate to direct the Respondent Management to pay all the retiral benefits to the petitioner, such as, gratuity, provident fund etc., treating the petitioner as removed from service. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 3.2.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.12129 of 1999 3.2.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.12129 of 1999 Date: 3rd February, 2009 Between: N.Bikshamaiah .. Petitioner And Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabad & another. .. Respondents