IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10138 of 2000 Between: C.Narayana, S/o.C.Bichanna Rajapur Post, Via. Gopalpet, Kollapur Tq., Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Wanaparthy Bus Depot, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. .....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 call for the records relating to and in connection with award in I.D.No.14/94, dated 21st August, 1999 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages and other attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SARIKONDA RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10138 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Hyderabad dated 21.8.1999 passed in I.D.No.14 of 1994 confirming the order of removal of petitioner from service as Conductor and for consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor to the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and was working in Wanaparthy bus depot in Mahaboobnagar District. While he was conducting the bus bearing No.AEZ 596 on the route from Ramakrishnapur to Wanaparthy, a check was exercised at stage No.3. The checking officials have noticed certain cash irregularities and they were recorded and clarification was sought from the passengers and when an attempt is made to serve the charge memo, the petitioner did not receive the said charge memo. Based on the report of the checking officials, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was issued a charge sheet by framing as many as 5 charges. The charges framed against the petitioner read thus: “1. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 each from Fifteen (15) individual passengers who boarded your bus at Wanaparthy and found alighting at Peddagudem ex-stages 1 to 3 and issued used tickets bearing Nos.298/119659, 660, 679, 680, 681, 682, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692 of Rs.1.75 den. Which were already sold and accounted at stage No.1 to 5, in previous strip (s ic trip) i.e. Wanaparthy-Ramakrishnapur which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.2.25 each from the twenty four (24) individual passengers who boarded the bus at Wanaparthy and bound for Kadukuntla ex-stages 1 to 4 and issued used tickets bearing Nos.381/008855, 884, 859, 886, 887, 888, 889, 840, 841, 842, 845, 846, 847, 863, 864, 878, 880, 881, 899, 890, 345/087600 accounted at stage No.1 to 8 in previous trip i.e., Wanaparthy to Ramakrishnapur which constitutes misconduct under REG.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having already closed the tray Nos. of all denominations in the SR upto the point of check, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having provoked by passengers as well as villagers of Peddagudem not to allow the check by the checking officials and also threatened TTIs by the villagers with filthy language which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg. 28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 5. For having refused to sign on the charge memo as well as to accept the same which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg. 28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” In view of the denial of the charges by the petitioner, a regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry, submitted a report by recording a finding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, by giving further opportunity for the proposed punishment, an order of removal was passed against the petitioner removing from service. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of disciplinary authority and the same was ended in dismissal. He also filed a review application which was also ended in dismissal. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute by filing I.D.No.14 of 1994 under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court though recorded a finding that the domestic enquiry conducted is vitiated on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, allowed the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence and examined the validity of the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner himself examined as W.W.1 and another witness was examined as W.W.2 and marked Exs.W.1 to W.12. On behalf of Management-Corporation, the Deputy Inspector was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.M.1 to M.7 were marked. While appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Labour Court also found the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and confirmed the order of removal and held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the petition. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of any valid evidence, the enquiry officer has recorded the findings against the petitioner and based on the same, order or removal was passed. Further, it is submitted that the Labour Court failed to exercise its discretion and failed to consider the case of the petitioner for imposing lesser punishment under Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. From a perusal of the charges, it is clear that the petitioner made an attempt to defraud the revenues of the Corporation by issuing the used tickets in the previous trip for as many as 39 passengers. As per the first charge, which is held proved, the petitioner collected the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 ps. each from 15 individual passengers who boarded the bus at Wanaparthy for Peddagudem ex-stages 1 to 3, but they were issued tickets which were already sold and accounted for at stage Nos.1 to 5 in the previous trip from Wanaparty to Ramakrishnapur. Even as per charge No.2, for about 24 individual passengers who boarded the bus at Wanaparthy and bound for Kadukuntla ex-stages 1 to 4, he has issued tickets of denomination of Rs.2.25 ps. each which were already sold and accounted at stage Nos.1 to 8 in previous trip of Wanaparthy- Ramakrishnapur. Though the petitioner denied the charges at the time of check, statements of the passengers were recorded. The statement of the service driver was also recorded which was marked as Ex.M.4 which indicates non-cooperation of the petitioner at the time of check. Even for not receiving the charge memo, which was sought to be issued at the time of check, the only explanation of the petitioner was that he was not keeping good health. At this stage, it is to be noticed that when he was able to attend his duties and conduct the bus, there was no reason for not receiving the charge memo only on the alleged ground of ill-health. Though the petitioner himself examined as W.W.1 apart from examining one other ex-employee on his behalf, his only case was that the Ticket Inspector foisted a false case against him. There is no material available or any motive is attributed to the officials necessitating them to implicate the petitioner. There is no reason for not accepting the evidence of the Ticket Inspector, who has deposed as M.W.1. From the deposition of M.W.1 coupled with the statement of the service driver and the statements of the passengers recorded at the time of check, the charges framed against the petitioner are amply proved and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary. In any event, the Labour Court itself having recorded a finding that the domestic enquiry proceedings were vitiated on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance proceeded to examine the issue by recording the evidence. The reasons recorded by the Labour Court and the findings arrived by it are in conformity with the oral and documentary evidence on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and the Labour Court failed to exercise its power under Section 11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be accepted considering the gravity of charges. It is a case where the petitioner closed the S.R. up to the stages where check has taken place and issued used tickets for large number of passengers as many as 39, who were traveling in the bus. In view of the nature of the charges which are held proved by the Labour Court, the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge so as to say that the Labour Court ought to have imposed lesser punishment than that of removal from service. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition warranting interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities and also the Labour Court which are on appreciation of evidence on record. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ R. SUBHASH REDDY. J MARCH 19, 2009 Tsr.