HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2011 Between: Ch. Tirupathi Rao ………….Appellants AND Presiding Officer-cum-Chairman and two others ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order rendered by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the Writ Petition by his order dated 27.10.2010. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant appointed as a Conductor on 1.11.1993 in APSRTC. While he was conducting the bus service between Vizianagaram and S.Kota on 6.5.1995, a check was conducted at stage No. 10, Chinnapuram and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. Hence, disciplinary action was initiated against the appellant by framing following charges. “1. For having failed to issue a ticket of Rs. 7/- to a lady passenger, who boarded your bus at Vizianagaram and bound for Ksayyapeta, exstages 12-4, even after collecting the requisite fare from the said lady passenger, though the number of passengers in the bus was only 21. While you are conducting the bus 9871 on the route VZM –S.Lota on 6.5.1995 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (ix-a) and (vi.a) & (x) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having closed the tray numbers of all denominations upto the stage No. 10 without completion of ticket issues, while you were conducting the bus 9871 on the route VZM-S.Kota on 6.5.1995, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.No. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” The Enquiry Officer found charges proved and by order dated 26.10.1995 of the Depot Manager, S.Kota, the appellant was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal and thereafter a revision but both were dismissed. Hence, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court held that the misconduct alleged against the appellant was clearly established upon the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Writ Petition and a learned Single Judge also dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, the present Writ Appeal by the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that in similar situated cases the Hon’ble Court has invoked Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and ought to have set aside the order of the respondent. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on facts and law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. It is on record that the disciplinary authority on the ground of cash and ticket irregularities framed two charges. With regard to first charge, the appellant made false statement with regard to purchase of a ticket, therefore, varying stands by the appellant inevitably led to a adverse inference being drawn against him. With regard to second charge, the explanation of the appellant that there was a chargeable child who was sleeping in the lap of another passenger and that he could not tally the total number of passengers properly was also disbelieved by the disciplinary authority and the Labour Court as there were only 21 passengers on board at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the learned Single Judge following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in REGIONAL MANAGER U.P.SRTC VS. HOTI LAL[1], N.E.K.R.T.C VS. H. AMARESH[2] AND U.P.SRTC VS. VINOD KUMAR[3], wherein the Supreme Court had observed “that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct but however in a case of corruption/misappropriation, the only punishment was dismissal”, observed that there can be no doubt that even a single instance, as in the present case, substantiating the charge of misappropriation of ticket fare by the Conductor would be sufficient to justify his termination from service and accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the past record of the appellant has to be taken into account while imposing punishment. We asked the leaned Standing Counsel that how many years of service put up by the appellant. He stated that the appellant rendered only three years of service. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. . ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 16.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (2003)3 SCC 605 [2] (2006) 6 SCC 187 [3] (2008) 1 SCC 115