THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.3413 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award, dated 15.11.2003, in I.D.No.64 of 2001, on the file of the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anatapur, whereunder the application filed under Section 2(a)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the petitioner, was dismissed without granting any relief. The petitioner is the workman and the first respondent is the Management. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as a Casual Conductor in APSRTC on 09.05.1997. While conducting bus, bearing No.AP10 Z 30, on the route Bhoopativaripalli to Kadiri, a check was exercised at stage No.1 at 1230 hours and TTIs found certain cash and ticket irregularities and issued a charge memo, dated 20.11.1999. On the basis of the charge memo, a charge sheet was issued on 25.11.1999, enumerating the following charges: “1. For having failed to show the issues and accountal of tickets bearing No.100/477105, 106, 107, 108 and 110 of Rs.12.00 denm., which were issued at Sl.No.09 and valid up to stage No.01 till the time of check, while you were conducting the bus No.AP 10 Z 30 on the route Bhoopathivaripalli-Karidi on 20.11.1999, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having kept the Rs.12-00 denm., tickets bearing No.100/477105, 106, 107, 108 & 110 in your shirt pocket which were already issued at stag No.09, but not accounted in your service S.R bearing No.7459092, dt.20.11.99, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.No.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the charge sheet stating that she issued six tickets of Rs.12/- denomination, bearing series Nos.100/477105 to 477110, to six passengers, who boarded the bus at stage No.9/8 i.e., Puligundlapalli. That due to lack of change, she made an endorsement on the backside of the ticket and when the passengers asked her that she had given only five tickets, she verified the tickets and found that ticket bearing series No.100/477109 was missing. That then she asked them to find out the missing ticket, which might be in their pockets or might have fallen down in the seats. In the meantime, service bus was over loaded and she forgot to account the tickets and she could not tally the passengers with the S.R., since there were about 100 passengers, including 20 student bus pass holders. Since there was dispute about the missing of ticket, she could not close the SR. The said explanation was not accepted and an enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty and accordingly, the first respondent removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised filed I.D.No.64 of 2001 before the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that there was no mistake on her part in issuing the tickets and collecting the fare. Even according to her, she has issued six tickets and collected money and they were also found to be punched properly. Since ticket bearing series No.100/477109 was found missing, on the reverse of which, she has made an endorsement for return of change, and as the same was not produced, all this confusion had arisen. It was her further case that even the enquiry was not properly conducted by the first respondent and the same is vitiated, since it suffers from many procedural irregularities, apart from principles of natural justice. Even assuming that the charges are proved, they are trivial in nature and such misconduct does not warrant removal of the petitioner from service. The first respondent filed its counter affidavit defending the removal order passed by it. Before the Labour Court, none was examined and no documents were exhibited. However, on the basis of the record available, the Labour Court held as under: “Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the claimant was conducting the bus bearing No.AP10Z 30 on the date of check. It is also not in dispute that the ticket No.100/477105, 106, 107, 108 & 110 of Rs.12/- denm., issued at stage No.9 valid up to stage No.1 were not shown as issues in the S.R and thus not accounted and that she produced those tickets at the time of check. The above tickets were already punched at stage No.1 in the up-journey and one in the down journey. After issuing those tickets the claimant ought to have closed the S.R as 111 but she continued to close the same as 105 till the time of check. As seen from the entries of the S.R there were only 35 passengers at stage No.8 and 34 passengers boarded the bus at stage No.6. Thus the contention of the claimant that the bus was over loaded with the passengers at the time of issuing tickets at Stage No.9 is not correct. When the passengers referred in the charge boarded the bus and travelled up to stage No.6 the bus was not over loaded. It has to be seen that the same tickets which are issued at stage No.9 and which are not accounted in the S.R were found in the pocket of the claimant, the ticket No.109 was found missing. The version of the claimant is not convincing and the Enquiry Officer has rightly rejected the same. Even if the passengers boarded the bus after the request stage after stage No.9 the claimant could have made correct entries from stage No.8 in the S.R. Even if there is some mistake in making entries in the S.R the conductor is not expected to keep already issued tickets in her pocket, keeping already issued tickets in her pocket and not accounting the same tickets in the S.R and not showing total number of passengers correctly shows her malafide intention. She has done series of acts and it cannot be said to be a mistake due to over sight or negligence. In the circumstances, the version of the Management appears to be more probable and the findings of enquiry officer are based on record and reasoning. It cannot be said that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are baseless or perverse. Therefore, I hold that the charges levelled against the claimant have been proved. Since the claimant indulged in attempting to defraud the revenues of the Corporation by not accounting the issued tickets in the S.R and kept those tickets in her pocket, the punishment appears to be reasonable. Hence, the claim petition is dismissed. In the result, the claim petition is dismissed.” Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that there was no charge of misappropriation or mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. But, the Labour Court, without there being such charge or evidence let in, has given a finding that petitioner had committed series of acts and she had a mala fide intention. He further contended that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the circumstances of the case and simply approved the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that there was no reason for the petitioner to keep the five tickets with her, which were no doubt properly punched, and though money was collected, it was not accounted for and the explanation submitted by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the disciplinary authority and the Labour Court. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference by this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has made a pedantic approach. The petitioner herself admitted that five tickets were not accounted for, though they were issued and money was collected. The fact that ticket, bearing series No.100/477109 was found missing, is not in dispute. It appears, there was some quarrel between the petitioner and the passengers, since they have not produced ticket, bearing series No.100/477109, wherein the endorsement as to the return of change was made. Therefore, the petitioner took all the tickets and put them in her shirt pocket and was conducting the bus. In the process, as many as 100 passengers have boarded the bus and it was over loaded from stage No.8 onwards and there is no dispute as to this fact also. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioner is a new entrant, the disciplinary authority could have taken a lenient view of the matter and has given one opportunity to her to correct herself and serve the department. In stead, the disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court made a pedantic approach in removing the petitioner from service, without even considering her case under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not the case of the first respondent that the petitioner committed any such misconduct earlier. 1½-year service of the petitioner as a conductor was clean and bereft of any remarks. There is no charge against the petitioner that she has misappropriated the money nor there is any finding that she has re-issued the tickets etc. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the approach of the first respondent in removing the petitioner from service is unwarranted in the peculiar circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the impugned order of removal, as confirmed by the Labour Court, is set aside and the Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any back wages and other attendant benefits including increments. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) Date: 25.01.2011 VGB