IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15963 of 2007 Between: C.H. Lingaiah, S/o. Atchaiah, Staff No. 84279, C/o. Plot No. 103, Saideep Apartments, CPL Road, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Chandra Vihar Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hayathnagar Depot, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the orders passed in I.D.No. 47/2004 dt. 13-11-2006 on the file fo the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad i.e., 1st respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No.2, herein to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service along with all aqttendatnt benefits and backwages, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.PRADEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15963 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the award passed in I.D.No.47 of 2004 dated 13.11.2006 on the file of the Labour Court- II, Hyderabad. Petitioner is workman and respondent No.2 is the management. It appears, petitioner while working as Conductor in second respondent-Depot was placed under suspension on the charge of cash and ticket irregularities committed by him on 1.8.2001 and therefore he was issued with charge sheet dated 17.8.2001 enumerating the following charges: “1. You have collected the requisite fare of Rs.4/- and issued the ticket bearing No.280/574469 of Rs.4/- denomination, which was sold on the previous day i.e. 31.7.2001 as per the way bill No.0626/06401159 dated 1.8.2001 to a passenger, who was found traveling from Mehdipatnam to Koti, ex-stages 12 to 8, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. You have collected the requisite fare of Rs.4-50 ps. and issued the ticket bearing No.181/223547 of Rs.4-50 ps. denomination, which pertains to the tray of Mr.G.A.Kumar, E.109723, Conductor of HYT Depot and was sold on previous day i.e. 31.7.2001 to a passenger who was found traveling from Mehdipatnam to Chaderghat, ex-stages 12 to 7, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3.You have collected the requisite fare of Rs.4/- and issued the ticket bearing No.285/563747 of Rs.4/- denomination, which was sold on 28.7.2001 to a passenger, who was found traveling from A.C.Guards to Chaderghat, ex-stages 11/10 to 7, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” After seeking explanation from the petitioner and having not satisfied with the same, respondent-management, after conducting a detailed enquiry, passed removal order dated 6.4.2002. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. It was the case of the petitioner that enquiry was not properly conducted and he was not given full and fair opportunity to defend himself. The said claim was resisted by the respondent-management by filing a detailed counter. The Labour Court, while upholding the enquiry conducted by the management, considered the case of petitioner on merits and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner states that the charges were neither proved nor the enquiry conducted by the respondents was fair and proper. Apart from that, even assuming that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, therefore the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service atleast. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents Mr.K.Madhav Reddy strenuously contended that the petitioner has committed a pre-meditated misconduct by issuing the already sold tickets, therefore the misconduct committed is serious in nature and apart from that, petitioner’s past conduct was not good and he suffered several punishments earlier, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. At the outset, it is seen that the petitioner is not a novice. He was appointed as Conductor on 30.11.1978 and for the present removal, he filed a Claim Petition in I.D.No.47 of 2004. The Labour Court vide impugned award dated 13.11.2006 dismissed the said I.D. The charges made against the petitioner are grave in nature since they relate to reissue of tickets causing loss of revenue to the Corporation. Petitioner has issued tickets to the passengers, which were already sold out in the earlier journey. Apart from that, the Labour Court gave a finding that the petitioner was having full knowledge about the tickets possessed by the passengers and he had issued invalid tickets and collected fare from the passengers and thereby deprived the revenue of the Corporation. The Labour Court also recorded a finding that the past record of the petitioner was bereft of good conduct. The petitioner was previously removed from service on 20.1.1986 and again on 26.11.1996 and reinstated on consideration of review petition. He was also removed from service on 17.7.1988 and reinstated by an award passed in I.D.No.245 of 1992. That apart, his grade annual increments were deferred for 18 times and he was also warned several times for the similar misconduct. Considering all these facts, the Labour Court refused to interfere with the removal order passed by the respondent- management. Thus, in the given circumstances, it cannot be said that imposition of punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and the Labour Court has committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 11.11.2008 DA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15963 of 2007 11.11.2008