THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WA Nos.1910, 1839, 1843, 1908, 1957, 1924, 1925, 1926 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) All these writ appeals arise out of the common order dated 19-8- 2005 passed in WP No.27376 of 2003 and batch by the learned single Judge of this Court. As issue involved in these appeals is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts stated are:- The appellants herein were Conductors working in APSRTC prior to their removal from service. It is stated that the appellants who were working as Conductors, at the relevant time, have accepted the fake police warrants and issued tickets to the value mentioned on the reverse of the warrants. On the allegation that the appellants submitted fake police warrants and thereby caused loss of revenue to the Corporation and basing on the preliminary enquiry report, the appellants were placed under suspension and a regular departmental enquiry was ordered by framing appropriate chargers against them. As the explanation submitted by the appellants herein was not satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the appellants are proved. Based on the enquiry officer’s report, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice of removal to the appellants and sought their explanation within 15 days, for which the appellants submitted their explanation and as the explanation found to be not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority ordered for removal of the appellants from service. The statutory appeal and review filed by the appellants ended in dismissal confirming the order of removal. Thereafter, the appellants raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by common award dated 18-6-2003 passed in ID Nos.36 of 2002 and batch dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved by the said common award dated 18- 6-2003, the appellants filed writ petitions being WP Nos.27376 of 2003 and batch. By order dated 19-8-2005 the said WP Nos.27376 of 2003 and batch were dismissed. The operative portion of the impugned order reads thus: “With regard to the punishment, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the consciousness of the Court, there is no scope for interference. Being Conductors, the petitioners have to perform their duties with utmost integrity and honesty. When a Conductor fails to maintain the standards of integrity and honesty, the Corporation will sustain loss. Thousands of rupees have been misappropriate by the petitioners and the trust reposed on them is shaken by their acts. Misappropriation of amounts or corruption cases have to be dealt with iron hand. There cannot be any other punishment in such cases except the dismissal. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmities in the impugned awards passed by the Tribunal and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.” 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-workmen and the learned standing counsel for the Corporation. Perused the order impugned in these appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that acceptance of police warrants by the appellants and issuing tickets of the value mentioned on the reverse of the police warrants was a bona- fide act and the depot clerk who received the alleged fake warrants from the appellants has not raised any objection as to their genuineness or otherwise and the appellants were charged only after the Corporation received information from the office of the Director General of Police that the warrants are fake warrants and not genuine. Learned counsel further contended that the findings of the enquiry officer is not based on evidence and none of the authorities were examined to prove that the police warrants are fake and to prove the alleged misconduct. Learned counsel stated that if the mistake is so patent, the depot clerk who collected the police warrants from the appellants after the spell of their duties, ought to have confronted them that the warrants accepted by them were not genuine and they were fake warrants. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent- Corporation submitted that every opportunity was given to the appellants to put forth their case and after considering the matter, the enquiry officer gave a categorical finding that the charges levelled against the appellants are established and, therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse and not based on evidence. It is also stated that considering the evidence adduced, the Tribunal and the learned single Judge of this Court confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 6. The charge against the appellants was that they have produced the fake police warrants after the spell of their duties with mala-fide intention and misappropriated the cash, which constituted misconduct under Regulation 28 (x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and endorsed on the fake police warrants and caused loss to the revenue of the Corporation which constituted misconduct under Regulation 28 of the Regulations. 7. It is stated that as a rule whenever the police personnel who travel in the Corporation buses will produce warrants for purchasing the tickets in lieu of cash to the Conductor and they will be allowed to travel on the strength of the warrants and the Conductor has to submit the copies of the warrant after spell of his duty to the depot clerk of the depot and the depot clerk who collected the police warrants forward them to the concerned section and finally through audit officer send them to the concerned Superintendent of Police for payment. The allegation against the appellants-workmen is that the police warrants submitted by them after the spell of their duties is found to be fake and not genuine. The case of the appellants in the enquiry was that some 10 persons boarded the bus to go to Chittoor and when they were asked to take tickets, the said 10 persons handed over a police warrant and after verifying the warrant as to signature of the issuing authority with office seal and warrant number, tickets were issued to the said persons in lieu of taking cash, that the police warrant was taken and they have noted down the ticket numbers on the police warrant copies and retained copies to be submitted to the police department for claiming the refund of the amount of the fare. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellants was solely based on the letters addressed by the Addl. Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, CBCID, dated 15-2-1991 and 16-2-1991 respectively, at the request of the concerned Regional Manager. It is to be noticed that till the above two letters are received by the Regional Manager from the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police CBCID, the Corporation was not aware that the police warrants submitted by the appellants were fake warrants. It is true that the appellants were given opportunity to put forth their case before the enquiry officer, but the fact remains when the appellants produced the police warrants, after their spell of their duties, the concerned depot clerk without raising any objections received them and it could not be checked and detected whether they are fake warrants or genuine ones till the letters dated 15-2-1991 and 16-2-1991 are received by the Corporation for a period of six months. There is no evidence that the appellants themselves produced the fake warrants and misappropriated the money collected from the passengers. Before the enquiry officer the appellants specifically stated that there was no possibility for them to know about the correctness or otherwise of the police warrants and they simply relied on the signatures of the issuing authority appearing on the warrants and the place of issue. Except the letters addressed by the office of the DGP and IG, CBCID, there is no material to conclude that the warrants are fake and no official from the Police Department was examined to establish and prove that the warrants were fake. Even assuming that the appellants ought to have been diligent in verifying the correctness or otherwise of the police warrants, it is their case that they accepted the said warrants in good faith and issued tickets for the value mentioned on the reverse of the warrants, in the circumstances of the case, the extreme punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the appellants. There is no evidence adduced to come to a conclusion by the enquiry officer that the appellants utilized the fake warrants and thereby misappropriated the amounts. It is also brought to our notice that in respect of one person (Goverdhan in ID No.184 of 2000) who has been charged with the same charges was given a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The appellants who also faced same charges deserve similar treatment than the extreme punishment of removal from service. 8. Inasmuch as the finding of the enquiry officer is not based on evidence and as a matter of course, the matters have to go back to the file of the enquiry officer for recording a finding to that effect, but as we are informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that most of the appellants are on the verge of retirement and retired, we are inclined to pass the following order: i) The order of removal passed against the appellants- workmen is hereby set aside and they are directed to be re-instated into service, if not already retired, forthwith. ii) The appellants are imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 9. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ____________________ Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J Dated: 28-7-2009 Nrg IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1910 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/08/2005 in WP NO : 8288 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 E.M.Naidu S/o. E.Krishnam Naidu Ex.Conductor, APSRTC R/o. Madanapalli, Chittoor. 2 R.R.Nath, S/o.RVenkataramana Ex.Conductor, APSRTC R/o.D.No.13-87/3, Prakasam Road, Kuppam, Chittoor District. 3 R.R.Nath S/o. R.Venkatramana Ex.Conductor, APSRTC R/o. D.No. 13-8-87/3, Prakasam Road, Kuppam, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Chairman-Cum-Prsiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The APSRTC, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC KUPPAM Depot, Chittoor District. 4 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (O)_ APSRTC, Tirupathi, redesignated as Divisional Manager, APSRTC., Chittoor Chittoor District. 5 The Regional Manager APSRTC.,Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 6 The Depot Manager, APSRTC MADANAPALLI I Depot, Chittoor. 7 P.Keshavulu, S/o.Chengappa, Ex-conductor, APSRTC, C/o.Mumtaz Begum RTC, Nallagutta, Peeleru Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants: MR.V.S.R.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY (SC FOR APSRTC) WRIT APPEAL NO : 1839 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/08/2005 in WP NO : 7769 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Kamini Ratnam Chary, S/o. K. Lakshmaiah Chary, R/o. D.No.28-749/1, Kannaiah Naidu Colony, Chittoor. 2 B.P.V. Ramana, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. D.No.28/395/6, Near Kings Convent, Ramangar Colony, Chittoor. 3 S.K. Murthy, S/o. S.R. Murthy, R/o. D.No.28-324, F Cross, Ram Nagar colony, Chittoor. 4 N. Shanmugam, S/o. Natesan Mudali, R/o. D.No.3/41, Kolathamman Street, Murukambattu (Post), Chittoor. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Chairman-cum-presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Palamer Depot, Chittoor District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor II Depot, Chittoor. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants: MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1843 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/08/2005 in WP NO : 8288 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 P.Kesavulu, S/o.Changappa, Madanpalli I Depot, C/o.Muntaza Begum, RTC Nallgutta, Piler, Chittoor district. 2 P.Kesavulu S/o. Changappa, Ex.Conductor, APSRTC c/o. Muntaza Begum RTC Nallagutta, Pileru 3 R.R.Nath S/o. R.Venkatramana, Ex.Conductor, APSRTC R/o. D.No. 13-8-87/3, Prakasam Road, Kuppam, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Chairman-Cum-Prsiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The APSRTC, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC KUPPAM Depot, Chittoor District. 4 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (O)_ APSRTC, Tirupathi, resignated as Divisional Manager, APSRTC., Chittoor Chittoor District. 5 The Regional Manager APSRTC.,Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 6 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Madanapalli Depot, Chittoor. 7 E.M.Naidu 7 & 8 not necessary. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants: MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1908 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/08/2005 in WP NO : 8277 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 D.Chandraiah S/o. D. Venkatappa R/o.D.No.4-65, Indira Sagar Piler Chittoor District. 2 G.S.Reddy S/o. Paresu Reddy R/o. Ayyavaripalli (Post) Cayaland Mandal Chittoor District. 3 G.Sadasivudu R/0 KURUVAPALLI VILLAGE,Mudumpaddu Post, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Cuddapah District. 4 R.Raja Reddy, s/o. R.Muni Reddy, R/O. 8/386,Court Road, ANANTHAPUR. 5 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 6 The Deport Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor II Depot, Chittoor. 7 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Palamaneru Depot, Chittoor. 8 the Deport Manager, APSRTC, Tirupathi Depot, Tirupathi. 9 The Deport Manager,APSRTC, Piler Depot, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Indusrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ananthapur Disrict 2 The APSRTC , Hyderabad Rep.by its Managing director Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Kuppam Depot, Chittoor District 4 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (O) APSRTC Tirupathi, redesignated as Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor, Chittoor district. 5 The Regional Manager, APSRTC Tirupathi Chittoor District. 6 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Chittoor II Depot, Chittoor District. 7 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Palamaneru Depot Chittoor District. 8 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Tirupathi Depot Tirupathi. 9 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Piler Depot Tirupathi. 10 C.Yesupadam 11 M.G. Murthy 12 G.Raj Gopal 13 S.B.Saheb 14 K.S.Reddy 15 B. Lakshmaiah (Respondents 10 to 15 are not necessary in the present appeal.) .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants: MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1957 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/08/2005 in WP NO : 8315 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 G.Subramanyam S/o Rama Subramanyam D.No.19-161, Red Cross Street, Mittoor, Chittoor Dist 2 M.N.Ganesh S/o M.Arjunappa D.No.9-74, Opp. Vanya Block School Chittoor Dist . ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Indurstrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Anantapur District 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Chittoor I Depot, Chittoor Dist. 3 S.M.Muzeed (R3 is not necessary) .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants: MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1924 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/08/2005 in WP NO : 5089 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: U.G. Swamy S/o U. Srinivasulu R/o D. No. 14-56/1, Reddy Street, Oldpet, Chandragiri, Chittoor District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District 2 The APSRTC, Hyderabad, rep by Managing Director, Hyderabad 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor-I Chittoor District 4 The Dy. Traffic Manager (O), APSRTC Tirupathi, redesignated as Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor, Chittoor District 5 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Tirupathi, Chittoor district .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:V.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1925 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/08/2005 in WP NO : 8308 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: B.B. Reddy S/o. B.Subba Reddy Ex. Conductor, APSRTC, Chittoor-I Depot, R/o. Thotanapalli Village, Veduru Kuppam (M) Devalampet (P) (P) Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The APSRTC Hyderabad, rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Chittoor-I Chittoor District. 4 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (O) APSRTC, Tirupathi, redesignated as Divisional Manager APSRTC., Chittoor Chittoor District. 5 The Regional Manager APSRTC., Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.S.R.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1926 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/08/2005 in WP NO : 8277 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 C. Yesupadam, S/o. Chinna Swamy, ;Kuppam Depot, Iruvaram Post, Chittoor District. 2 M.G. Murthy, S/o. M. Murugappa, Chittoor II Depot, D.No. 28-885, Kannaiah Naidu Colony, Chittoor District. 3 G. Raj Gopal, ' S/o. M. Murugappa, Chittoaor II Depot, Chittoor. 4 S.B. Saheb, S/o. S. Masthan Saheb, Palamaneru Depot, Chintaparti Vill, Chitaparti ( post), Vayalapadu Mandal, Chittoor Dist. 5 K.S. Reddy, S/o. K. Lakshmi Reddy, Chittoor II Depot, Yeguva Kaluva Village, Nandanuru ( post), Chittoor. 6 B.Lakshmaiah, S/o.B.Subbarayappa, R/o.8/386. Court Road, Anantapur. 7 G.S.Reddy, R/o. Ayyavaripalli, (post), Vayalpad Mandal, Chittoor District. 8 G. Sadasivudu, R/O. K;uruvapalli Village, Mudumpaddu post, T. Sundupalli Mandal, Cudapah District. 9 R. Raja Reddy S/o. R. Muni Reddy, R/o. 8/386, Court Road, Anantapur. 10 b. Lakshmaiah, W/o. B. Subbarayappa, R/o. 8/386, Court road, Anantapur. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur District. 2 The APSRTC yderabad rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, KUPPAM Depot, Chittoor District. 4 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager (o) APSRTC, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 5 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 6 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor II Depot, Chittoor. 7 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Palamaneru Depot, Chittoor. 8 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tirupathi Depot, Tirupathi. 9 The Deport Manager,APSRTC, Piler Depot, Chittoor District. 10 D.Chandraiah, S/o.D.Venkatappa, R/o.D.No.4-65, Indira nagar, Pileru, Chittoor district. 11 G.S.Reddy, R/o.,Ayyavaripalli (PO), Vyalapad Mandal, Chittoor district. 12 G.Sadasivudu, R/o.Kuruvapalli Village, Mudumpaddu Post, T Sundupalli Mandal, Cuddapah district. 13 R.Raja Reddy, S/o.R.Muni Reddy, R/o.8/386, Court Road, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants: MR.V.S.R.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR