IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17484 of 1999 Between: B.Raju S/o. B.Shankaraiah, R/o. Plot No.142, FCI Colony, Vanathalipuram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hakimpet, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records by setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.NO.138/98 and consequently direct the respondent or reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits and pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the Award dated 20.04.1999 made in I.D.No.138 of 1998 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad where under the petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Petitioner is the workman and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Management. It appears that while the petitioner was conducting the bus on route No.211D at stage No.20, a check was exercised by the checking officials and it was found that he was involved in certain cash and ticket irregularities. On the basis of the same, charge memo was issued by the checking officials. Later, on 23.3.1994 charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges: 1.For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.2-50 from a batch of two passengers who boarded his bus at Malakpet and found alighting at Koltur (ex- stages 17 to 20) and issued unconcerned tickets bearing Nos.151/548556 and 179/813966 of Rs.1-25 denomination E.2. 2.For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.2-00 from a passenger who boarded his bus at Aliabad cross roads and found alighting at Koltur (Ex.stages 15 to 20) and issued unconcerned ticket bearing No.202/311060 for Rs.2-00 denomination. 3.For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.3-50 from a batch of two passengers who boarded his bus at Aliabad and found alighting at Koltur (Ex.stages 16 to 20) and issued unconcerned tickets bearing Nos.295/337735 to 337736 of Rs.1- 75, E.2. 4.For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.2-50 from a batch of 2 (two) passengers who boarded his bus at Lalgadi, Malakpet and found alighting at Koltur (ex-stages 17 to 20) to whom he has re- issued tickets bearing NOs.010/930936 and 930937 of Rs.3-25 denomination to them which were already sold out and accounted in S.R.No.AO/5123217, dated 19.03.1994 in the first trip leaving Secunderabad at 13-50 hours. 5.For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.4-00 from a batch of two (2) lady passengers at the boarding point itself, who boarded his bus at Aliabad cross roads and found alighting at Koltur (ex-stages 15 to 20) and issued unconcerned tickets bearing Nos.086/990246 and 990247 of Rs.3-00 denomination; 6.For having failed to complete the valid ticket issues within one fare stage towards Koltur. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the same, the petitioner was ultimately inflicted with the punishment of removal from service on 26.07.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being I.D.No.138 of 1998, after more than four years. Before the Tribunal, it was the case of the petitioner that he issued tickets to all the passengers who boarded the bus including the alleged passengers in the charge memo and that there were more than 50 passengers in the bus at the time of check. After verifying the cash, the checking officials refused to endorse the check sheet in spite of repeated requests by the petitioner and threatened that they would book insubordination case against him. It was his further case that there was no deficiency or irregularity in his service and the checking officials have not made any remark in the charge sheet. The petitioner also submits that he had no intention whatsoever as alleged in the charge sheet to commit an act under Reg.28 (vi-a) X and XXIII of conduct Regulation, 1963 and that the checking officials failed to follow the instructions of the Corporation issued in M.TD.267. Further, the checking officials collected the alleged tickets from the passengers in the absence of the petitioner. The TTI’s failed to collect material evidence and endorse in the official records like S.R, check report MTD 43/R. The act of the checking officials in not imposing fine on passengers in question, is contrary to the provisions of M.V.Act 1998 and also contrary to the mandatory instructions issued in Circular No.OPD/32/91 dated 24.09.1991. It was his further case that neither the enquiry was properly conducted nor there was any evidence to hold that he was guilty of the charges. Even assuming that there was some misconduct on his part, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Respondent-Management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner asserting that the enquiry was properly conducted after giving him ample opportunity to defend himself. Since the charges framed against the petitioner which were grave in nature were proved in full, no interference is called for by the labour Court. On behalf of both the parties, no oral evidence was let in. No documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondent-Management Exs.M1 to M14 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence placed before it, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Management was valid and further, the charges framed against the petitioner were grave in nature. Further, all the passengers have stated that they have paid the fare at the place where they boarded the bus and the conductor has issued the tickets at the boarding point itself. The petitioner has endorsed on the statements submitted by the passengers to be true. Since the charges were grave in nature and it was a contemplated misconduct, the labour Court even refused to invoke the power under Section 11-A of the Act and thus, dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both sides. The charges framed against the petitioner were matter of record and in all the charges, the petitioner issued tickets which were already used earlier i.e., he has re-issued the used tickets. Therefore, the charges cannot be said to be trivial in nature. It is a finding of fact that the tickets were found to be in possession of the passengers, who gave the statement that the petitioner has issued those tickets at the boarding point itself, after collecting the required fare. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the labour Court has not committed any error in not grating any relief in a case of this nature. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ___________ 27-02-2008 rkk .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hakimpet, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 4. 2CD copies