IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 25841 of 2002 Between: G.Madhava Reddy S/o.G.Biksham Reddy R/o.H.No.11-38/1, Telephone Colony, Ramakrishnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hon'bleIndustrial Tribunal-I, Rep by itsPresiding Officer, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad-II Depot, Dilsukhnagar, 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 to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records in I.D.No.44/2001, dt.25.1.2002 on the file of the Hon'ble 1st Respondent in so far as not granting any relief to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and consequently quash the award in I.D.No.44/2001, dt.25.1.2002 by reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.25841 of 2002 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records in I.D.No.44/2001 dt.25.1.2002 on the file of the Hon’ble 1st respondent in so far as not granting any relief for the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and consequently quash the award in I.D.No.44/2001, dt.25.1.2002 by reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the respondent corporation on 17.1.1992 and while he was on duty in the bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 5568 on route I.B.S. Gowliguda, Hyderabad to Bantharam ex-stages 1/1 to 24, on 11.09.1998 a check was conducted, during the course of which certain irregularities were detected. On the basis of the same, a charge sheet dated 07.10.1998 was issued framing the following charges: 1. For having collected Rs.27.00 from a passenger having boarded your bus at IBS and bound for Bantaram ex-stages 2 to 24 and you have issued low denomination tickets bearing No.026/000351 to 000352 of Rs.11.00E.2 to the above passenger instead of issuing tickets worth of Rs.26.50 to the above passenger is misconduct on your part under Reg.28(xxv) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963 2. For having higher denomination ticket blocks worth of Rs.20.00 with you yet you have issued of Rs.11.00 E.2 tickets to the above passenger which is misconduct on your part under Regulation 28 (vi) (a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963 3 Petitioner offered an explanation to the above said charges. But, however, the Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him and accordingly recommended for his termination from service. On the basis of the recommendation made by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was terminated from service by an order dated 17.02.1999. As against the said order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the said appeal was also dismissed and hence he raised a dispute, which was numbered as I.D.No.44 of 2001 and the Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 25.01.2002 confirmed the said order of termination. Questioning the same, the petitioner approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition. 4 Heard both sides. 5 Having considered the submissions and also the material placed on record, this court is of the view that definitely the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. But, however, any punishment, in my considered view, should be proportionate to the delinquency. Here is a case where the allegation against the petitioner is that he issued tickets worth Rs.22/- instead of issuing tickets worth Rs.26.50. That means there is a shortage of Rs.4.50. No doubt, the above shortage in issuing tickets can definitely be said to be misconduct, but as stated supra, the punishment should always be proportionate to the misconduct. The explanation offered by the petitioner is to the effect that he issued tickets worth Rs.26.50. To know as to whether the petitioner had really issued tickets worth Rs.26.50 or not can easily be detected by inspecting the M.T.D. 41 maintained by the conductors in general. Here is a case where the inspecting officials, without verifying the M.T.D 41, simply basing on the statements made by the passengers that the petitioner had issued ticket worth Rs.22/- framed the said charges to the effect that he had not issued tickets worth RS.26.50, but issued tickets worth Rs.22/-. There is negligence on the part of the inspecting officials also in not examining the said M.T.D. 41. Hence this court is of the view that the said punishment imposed on the petitioner i.e. terminating the petitioner from service is not in proportion to the misconduct alleged against him. 6 The petitioner as stated supra, was appointed as Conductor in the respondent corporation in the year 1992 and after working for a period of seven years his services were terminated in the year 1999 and for the last more than 10 years he is out of service. Hence this court is of the view that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as a conductor afresh. 7 Accordingly this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him as a conductor afresh. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages or continuity of service and the said appointment, if made, shall be treated afresh for all purposes. No order as to costs. ------------------------ 21.07.2009 kvsn