THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10977 of 2001 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 27.6.2000 passed in I.D.No.180 of 1996 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad published on 19.10.2000 whereby the Labour Court passed an award directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and other benefits without back wages and quash the same as being illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent was appointed as conductor on daily-wage basis on 17.5.1988. Subsequently, on 26.7.1989, he was appointed as temporary conductor under Regulation No.17 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent is bereft of any clean record of service. He had committed various cash and ticket irregularities on several occasions prior to his committing the present misconduct. The 1st respondent was given charge sheet dated 27.5.1991 with the following charges: “1. For having failed to observe the rule Issue and Start, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 2. For having issued the unpunched tickets of Rs.5/- bearing No.122/169641 to 645 (E-5) to 5 passengers who boarded the bus at Miryalguda i.e. stage No.1 and bound for Kalwakatta i.e. stage No.8 duly collecting the 2 requisite fare of Rs.5/- from each at their boarding point itself and you have not accounted the above tickets issues in the SR upto stage No.2/3 i.e. point of check, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 3. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to 4 passengers found traveling without ticket who boarded your bus at Gudur i.e. stage No.2 and bound for Kothagudem i.e. stage No.3 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 of (vi-A) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” Not being satisfied with his explanation, domestic enquiry was conducted against the 1st respondent. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry by giving opportunity to the 1st respondent and based on the evidence available on record, the Enquiry officer held that the charges are proved. The 1st respondent was removed from service on 30.9.1991 after giving show-cause notice and considering his explanation to the show-cause notice. The 1st respondent preferred appeal before the Divisional Manager and also revision before the Regional Manager and the same were rejected on 30.11.1998 and 10.1.1996 respectively. The petitioner raised I.D.No.180 of 1996 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent also filed memo under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act to pass award based on the material available on record. Hence, the validity of the enquiry and finding are not challenged. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence available on record i.e. Ex.W.1 dated 17.5.1991 for Workman and Ex.M.1 to M.15 marked on behalf of the petitioners, came to the conclusion that the charges are proved. The Labour Court having held that the charges are proved, ought not to have interfered with the order of removal. The Labour Court relying on the judgment reported in 1998 LIC Page 833 held that the theory of principles of 3 proportionality was not considered while imposing the punishment. The Labour Court ought not to have taken lenient view as the charges proved are serious in nature and the Labour Court ought not to have directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent with all attendant benefits including continuity of service, but, the Labour Court rightly rejected the back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Pal1 wherein this Court held as follows: “Short question for our consideration in the present case is whether the punishment which has been modified by the learned Single Judge is justified or not? The learned Single Judge found that the punishment awarded in the present case is disproportionate to the guilt of the delinquent. So far as, the guilt of the petitioner is concerned, in the domestic enquiry it has been found that the petitioner is guilty of not issuing tickets to the twenty passengers and the same finding of the domestic enquiry has been upheld by the Labour Court & High Court. The petitioner was a conductor and holding the position of trust. If incumbent like the petitioner starts misappropriating the money by not issuing a ticket and pocketing the money thereby causing loss to the Corporation then this is a serious misconduct. It is unfortunate that the petitioner was appointed in 1988 and in the first year of service he started indulging in mal practice then what can be expected from him in the future. If this is the state of affair in the first year of service and if such persons are allowed to let off to the light punishment then this will be a wrong signal to the other persons similarly situated. Therefore, in such cases the incumbent should weeded out as fast as possible and same has been upheld by the Labour Court. We are firmly of the view that such instances should not be dealt with lightly so as to pollute the atmosphere in the Corporation and other co- workers. 1 (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 108 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the judgment cited supra submits that the 1st respondent has committed serious misconduct and that the charges are proved in the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court having held the charges as proved ought not to have reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in considered view of this Court and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, the 1st respondent is not entitled for any continuity of service and attendant benefits. In considered view of this Court, to meet ends of justice, as the punishment of removal from service is not in commensurate with the proved misconduct, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement without continuity of service and attendant benefits and without back wages. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The award is modified to the extent that the 1st respondent is entitled to reinstatement without continuity of service and attendant benefits. However, the back wages already rejected by the Labour Court is justified. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO Date: 28/06/2018 lkv 5