IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No. 1590 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/08/2001 in Writ Petition No.17330 of 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) The Managing Director, APSRTC, Mushirabad,Hyderabad. 2) The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Sangareddi, Medak District. 3) The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Medak Depot, Medak. ... APPELLANTS AND N. Bhoomaiah S/o.Sri Venkaiah, Chinna Ghanpur, Kulcharam (Mandal), Medak District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR. V. PADMANABHA RAO FOR SMT. B. UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Shri Anil R. Dave, Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 17.8.2001 passed in Writ Petition No.17330 of 2000, this appeal has been filed by the officers of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the litigation have been described as arrayed in the writ petition. 3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under: 4. The petitioner was working as a daily wage conductor. It is pertinent to note that he was not given regular appointment as a conductor, but he was working as a daily wager and upon completion of a particular period in a satisfactory manner and upon arising of vacancy in the cadre of conductor, he was to be given regular appointment. 5. On 02.7.1999, when he was performing his duties as a conductor, a surprise check was effected by Travelling Ticket Inspector (TTI) and during the said surprise check, it was found that the petitioner had collected fare from four passengers, but had not issued tickets to the said passengers. The said fact was recored and a report to that effect had been submitted by the TTI to the higher authorities. 6. At the time when the surprise check was effected, the petitioner was asked to give his explanation. He had made his spot statement and admitted his fault. Thus, the petitioner had admitted the fact that he had collected the fare, but had not issued tickets to four passengers. 7. Since the petitioner conductor was not a regular employee, the respondent employer ought to have terminated the services of the petitioner conductor in pursuance of the afore-stated irregularity committed by him. However, the petitoner was given intimation with regard to the charge levelled against him under Charge Memo dated 02.7.1999 and was asked to give his explanation. The petitioner was also given a show cause notice dated 05.7.1999 calling upon him to show cause as to why his name should not be deleted from the approved/select list. 8. The petitioner gave reply to the said show cause notice on 11.8.1999 admitting the fact that he had committed a mistake and he assured the respondent employer that he would not commit such a mistake in future. 9. In view of the above misconduct on the part of the petitioner, by virtue of the order dated 20.8.1999, his name was deleted from the approved/select list. 10. Being aggrieved by the afore-stated order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.17330 of 2000. After hearing the concerned advocates, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were against the settled principles of natural justice and, therefore, quashed and set aside the order dated 20.8.1999 whereby the name of the petitioner was deleted from the approved/select list, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. 11. Being aggrieved by the afore-stated order, this appeal has been filed by the respondent employer. 12. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent employer has submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed an error by coming to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice had been violated. He has drawn our attention to the spot statement made by the petitioner admitting his fault and has submitted that the petitioner was also asked to give his explanation in pursuance of the charge levelled against him. According to him, the petitioner had not only admitted his fault at the time when he had made a statement when surprise check was effected by the TTI, but had also admitted in the reply to the show cause notice that he had committed the mistake unintentionally and had assured the respondent employer that he would not commit the said mistake again. The learned advocate has also drawn our attention to the statements of the four passengers, which had been recorded at the time of surprise check. The passengers had stated before the TTI that they had paid bus fare to the petitioner conductor, but the conductor had not issued tickets to them. 13. Looking to the facts of the case and upon hearing the learned advocate for the appellants, we find that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the charge levelled against the petitioner was correct. Though the petitioner conductor was working as a daily wager and was caught while committing the cash and ticket irregularties, the respondent employer had given sufficient opportunity to him so as to enable him to represent his case and only after considering the statements of the passengers and the statement of the delinquent employee admitting the misconduct, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the approved/select list of the daily wagers. As the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to represent his case before taking the impugned action, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice had been violated while terminating his services as daily wage conductor. 14. In our opinion, looking to the proved misconduct of the petitioner, the respondents could not have continued the petitioner even as a daily wager. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the action taken by the respondents because, such a person, who had started committing financial irregularities even before getting regular appointment, cannot be trusted or continued in service. 15. For the afore-stated reasons, we do not agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and, in our opinion, the impugned action of the employer is just and proper. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside and the order dated 20.8.1999 passed by the respondent employer is affirmed. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 20, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI}