IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18192 of 1999 Between: M.M. Ali … Petitioner AND Hon’ble Labour Court-III, rep., by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, M.J. Road, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao SC for APSRTC This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18192 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 23.11.1996 in ID.No.723 of 1993 insofar as the Labour Court denying the back wages to the petitioner and imposing stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect are concerned, as illegal and unjust. Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. The petitioner is a conductor and he faced disciplinary proceedings for certain cash and ticket irregularities. Three charges, which were framed against the petitioner, are as under: “1. For having closed last ticket numbers of Rs.2.25 denomination as 025/513571 instead of 513574 in way bill No.239 on 07.12.1991 (Rs.6.75) 025/513584 instead of 513590 (six tickets worth Rs.13.50 in way bill No.241 on 09.12.1991, 025/513595 instead of 513598 (three tickets worth Rs.6.75) which tantamounts to misconduct as per Regulation 28 (x) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having reissued six tickets of Rs.2/- demn., on 12.12.1991 despite of closing the digits as 174606 in S.R.No.164777 on 11.12.1991 having closed as 174660 in the way bill No.243 (063/004491243) dated 11.12.1991 and again opened the digits as 174660 in the S.R.No.0164962 dated 12.12.1991 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (xxiii) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having reissued three tickets of Rs.2/- demn., from 184685 to 174687 which was accounted against stage No.9 to 12 in 18.10 hours trip in 20.10/20.30 hours trip/ambiguously through/and forward the numbers in subsequent stages up to depot despite controller’s certification at W.College point as 174687 in the S.R.No.1520259 dated 14.12.1991 and opened as 174684 in the S.R.No.174678 by the conductor which tantamounts misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (xxiii) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” After completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was removed from service on 17.02.1993. The petitioner questioned the said order by raising an industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Labour Court modified the said award by holding that the petitioner was negligent in discharging his duties though he was not guilty of misappropriation and that the punishment imposed on him was too harsh. The Labour Court substituted the order of removal with the penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. Questioning the substituted punishment, the petitioner filed this writ petition. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the record. The enquiry officer in his enquiry report, after careful analysis of the entire evidence both oral and documentary inter alia, held as under: “From the above statements and records, it is clear that the Conductor has closed two way bills wrongly and shown less accounting of tickets of Rs.2.25 ps denomination though he sold more number of Rs.2.25 ps denomination tickets as mentioned above.” The enquiry officer therefore held the petitioner guilty of charge No.1. He also held the petitioner guilty of charge No.2. The Labour Court referred to Ex.M-3, complaint, Exs.M-12, M-13 and M-14, which are the statements of Sri K.Laxminarayana, Sri G. Srinivas and Sri K.Murtujabuddin respectively and held that these statements prove the irregularities of the petitioner and that the explanation offered by him under Ex.M-22 does not appear to be satisfactory, as he is not able to show the reason why he has committed the irregularity. Having given such a finding the Labour Court held that there was no misappropriation in the strict sense though there is negligence in discharging the duties of the petitioner. In my considered view, the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the detailed reasoning given by the enquiry officer. Be that at it may, it has taken a lenient view albeit on a wrong reasoning that no misappropriation was involved and despite the specific finding given by the enquiry officer, it imposed a lesser penalty on the petitioner. Though in strict sense the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner has not indulged in misappropriation may not stand strict judicial scrutiny, there is no necessity to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said finding as the Corporation has not questioned this finding. Be that as it may, the Labour Court has exercised its discretion vested in Section 11-A of the Act and substituted the punishment of removal with the lesser punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect and denial of back wages. It hardly needs any emphasis that the employees of the Corporation in general and the conductors in particular are required to observe absolute integrity and rectitude in discharging their duties. The petitioner, who is found guilty of entering less number of tickets in the record than actually issued, does not deserve any further lenience in the imposition of punishment over and above what is shown by the Labour Court. Therefore I do not find any jurisdictional error in the award of the Labour Court warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.11.2008 ES