IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26412 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Khammam Bus Depot, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri K. Vasudeva Rao S/o Nagaiah, Ex-Conductor, H.NO. 6-3-16, Bank Colony, Khammam. .....RESPONDENT 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 any appropriate Writ, direction order or particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the award in I.D.NO.157/94 of the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Warangal dt. 9/4/99 and publishied on 16/8/99 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitary and unjust and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26412 of 1999 ORDER: 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition questioning the award dated 09.04.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal in I.D.No.157 of 1994 whereby the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service as conductor with all attendant benefits and back wages. 2 The brief facts are that when the respondent was discharging his duty as conductor in the bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 4869, which was plying on the route from Khammam to Tirupathi on 11.02.1994 a check was exercised at stage No.17 and during the course of which certain irregularities were detected. Pursuant thereto, the respondent was kept under suspension by order dated 18.02.1994 and a memorandum of charge consisting of two charges was issued to the respondent. A detailed enquiry was conducted and based on the recommendation made by the enquiry officer the respondent was removed from service by order dated 19.09.1994. Assailing the said order of removal from service, the respondent preferred an appeal. But, however, the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal and hence the respondent raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal at Warangal, which was numbered as I.D.No.157 of 1994. As stated supra, the Industrial Tribunal, having considered the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority were not justified in removing the respondent from service as the charges are not proved against him and accordingly ordered reinstatement. 3 Heard the Standing counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation and the counsel for the respondent. 4 The charges leveled against the respondent are as follows: 1 “For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.48/- from four passengers at the boarding point itself who boarded the bus at stage No.16 (Kavali) and alighting at stage No.17 (Nellore) and issued the ticket Nos.341/806054, 057, 059 and 068 of Rs.10/- deno. (each four tickets) and 248/305639, 641, 644 and 645 of Rs.2/- deno. (each four tickets) (total value of tickets of Rs.10/- + 2/- deno. 12x4 = 48), out of four tickets of Rs.10/- deno. the ticket Nos.341/806054, 057, 059 tickets of Rs.10/- deno. were already issued (sold) and accounted at stage No.1 and punched as 1 to 6, the remaining fourth ticket bearing No.341/806068 of Rs.10/- deno. is accounted at stage No.6 which was punched as 6 to 9, it clearly shows that you have collected those tickets from the alightening passengers and reissued the same to the passengers, who boarded the bus at Kavali, stage No.16, and it is also found that ticket No.248/305639, 641, 644 and 645 of Rs.2/- (each four tickets) deno. are unaccounted in the service S.R. No. A2/1580751 of 11-2-94 upto stage No. 17( you have shown) the running number of Rs.2/- in the S.R. as 248/305638 whereas the actual running number is 248/305648, thereby you have sold the tickets from 638 to 647 (each 10) in your service and not accounted in the S.R. upto stage NO.17 i.e. the point of check, which is a misconduct under Reg. No.28 (xxiii) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2 You have not co-operated with the checking officials while recording the passengers’ statement and instigated the passengers in the bus not to give their statements. It is also reported that when an eye-witness person is recording the statement, you have objected it, (the checking officials obtained the signature of the service driver in support of the recorded statement) which is a misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” 5 From a perusal of the record it appears that there were no statements of the passengers and the two Travelling Ticket Inspectors did not respond and submit for examination or cross examination. On the contrary the evidence of the driver of the bus is to the effect that the respondent has not committed any irregularity during the course of the journey. The said statement made by the driver of the bus is consistent and there is no denial of the said statement made by the driver of the bus. Taking this into consideration, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that as there was no clinching evidence to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the charges are not proved and thus ordered reinstatement of the respondent into service with all attendant benefits and full back wages. But the case record reveals that the respondent who was appointed as conducted in the year 1978 was punished several times during his tenure as conductor and he was censured five times, increments were postponed 12 times and he was suspended in the year 1987. The above conduct of the respondent clearly establishes that he is not a man of clean record and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is purely technical in nature. 6 In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal can be confirmed, but, however, limiting the back wages to 50%. 7 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of modifying the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal as indicated above. No order as to costs. At this juncture, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation submitted that this court while granting interim stay of all further proceedings directed the petitioner-Corporation to deposit 50% of the back wages and accordingly the said amount was deposited by way of Demand Draft bearing No.610403 dated 21.01.2000 and the said amount is now lying with the Industrial Tribunal at Warangal. In that view of the matter, as the 50% of the back wages were already deposited, the respondent is at liberty to withdraw the same. ------------------ 22.07.2009 Kvsn