IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6143 of 2000 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot Narsampet, Warangal District. ... PETITIONER AND Md. Sadiq , S/o. Md. Ali, H.No.5-1027/6-6-A-7, Pochammakunta , Hanamkonda-9. C/o. S.Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate, ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, direction or order particularly a Writ in the nature of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the award in I.D.No.215/95 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal dt.9.12.1999 and published on 17.2.2000 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. P. Rajani Reddy (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed by A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, through its Depot Manager, Narsampet Depot, Warangal District, calling in question the award dated 09-12-1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No.215 of 1995. 2. The respondent herein was appointed as conductor in the year 1980. On 20-04-1984, when he was on duty, conducting bus bearing No.AAZ-313, a check was exercised at stage No.5 and the checking officials have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. With reference to the same, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and charge sheet dated 05-05-1984 was issued to him with the following charges: “1. For having failed to issue tickets to five passengers found traveling ex.stages 4/5 to 6, who boarded the bus at Gundlapaduthanda for Nallaballi even after collecting the requisite fare, the violating the rule Issue & Start, which constitutes under Reg.No.28(vi)(a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to close the tray Nos. of all denomination in the S.R. against stage No.5 till the time of check, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.No.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 3. In view of denial of the said charges by the respondent, a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after conducting an enquiry into the charges framed against the respondent, held that the said charges are proved. Based on the same, the disciplinary authority, by order, dated 16-11-1984, removed the respondent from service. Against the said order, the respondent filed an application under Section 2(A) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by way of an industrial dispute in I.D.No.215/95 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, while recording a finding that the delay in not issuing tickets was not on account of any mala fide intention to defraud revenues of the corporation, ordered reinstatement of the respondent into service with continuity of service with back wages from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. from 19-09-1995. It was further ordered that the respondent is not entitled for any wages from 16-11-1984 to the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 19-09-1995 and it was observed that the said period shall be reckoned as continuity of service for terminal benefits at the time of retirement. It was also ordered that after reinstatement, one increment of the respondent shall be stopped with cumulative effect. 4. Heard Sri P. Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner corporation and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the corporation that the Tribunal, without recording any valid reasons, ordered reinstatement of the respondent into service by awarding back wages from the date of filing of the petition. It is submitted that the charges framed in the enquiry, as proved, show that the respondent has failed to issue tickets even after collecting the fare and, as such, he has committed misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that, in the instant case, there was some delay on the part of the respondent in issuing tickets as there was a conversation with regard to tendering the exact fare by the passengers and in the meanwhile check was exercised and, as such, there was no mala fide intention on the part of the respondent to defraud the revenues of corporation. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that with regard to the validity of the enquiry, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner by giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent and as such held the same as valid. Though the Tribunal has held that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved, however, merely on an assumption that the delay in issuing tickets by the respondent to the passengers occurred only on account of the conversation between the respondent and the passengers with regard to tendering exact change, held that the same is an irregularity not amounting to misconduct and ordered reinstatement of the respondent into service. Though the respondent was removed from service as early as in the year 1984, the application was filed after a lapse of ten years, i.e. in the year 1995 and in spite of such inordinate delay the application was entertained. In normal course, the application should have been rejected on the ground of delay abnormal and laches in approaching the Tribunal. Coming to the merits of the case, it is to be seen that two charges are framed against the petitioner, and they are proved in the enquiry. The charges framed, which are proved in the enquiry, amount to misconduct, as much as the respondent failed to issue tickets even after collecting the requisite fare. In spite of the same, the Tribunal, without recording any valid reasons, termed the same as an irregularity not amounting to misconduct and reinstated the respondent into service. 8. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the respondent was reinstated into service in the year 2000 and is being continued since then. It is to be seen that after his reinstatement pursuant to the impugned award of the Tribunal, the respondent has put in nearly nine years of service. As much as the Tribunal has disbelieved the charges without recording valid reasons and taking into account the fact that the respondent was reinstated as long back as in the year 2000, this court is of the view that interests of justice would be met by modifying the award of the Tribunal to the following effect. 9. The reinstatement and the punishment of stoppage of stoppage of one increment as ordered by the Tribunal is confirmed. However, the continuity of service granted by the Tribunal from 16-11-1984 to 19-09-1995, shall be reckoned only for the purpose of terminal benefits at the time of retirement of the respondent. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed in all other respects. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. February 16, 2009 MRR