THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.11284 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Conductor in the Medchal Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 07.07.1996, he was conducting a local service between Rani Gunj and Medchal. A check was caused at stage No.6. On the spot, the petitioner was not issued any charge memo. Four days thereafter, a charge memo, dated 11.07.1996, was served upon the petitioner alleging that he issued tickets worth Rs.4/-, each to two passengers, who boarded the bus at the starting point, namely Rani Gunj, but, in the combination of Rs.2.25 p. and Rs.1.75 p., and the tickets for the denomination of Rs.1.75 p. were found to have been reissued. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that for the tickets of denomination of Rs.1.75 p. he closed the statistical report with 120, since he did not notice two folded tickets bearing Nos.118 and 119 and no irregularity has taken place as such. That was followed by a charge sheet dated 29.07.1996. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not weigh with the 2nd respondent – Depot Manager. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The charges framed against the petitioner were found proved. Through order, dated 17.12.1996, the 2nd respondent removed the petitioner from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies of appeal and review, the petitioner approached the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad by filing I.D.No.203 of 2000 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The Tribunal passed an award, dated 08.08.2001, dismissing the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is as to the reissue of the combination tickets of Rs.1.75 p., each, to two passengers, was made four days after the check in vindictive manner. He contends that the two tickets bearing No.118 and 199 got folded, since the bus was heavily loaded with about 90 passengers and the opening of that denomination at stage No.6 was written as 120 by mistake. He submits that in the process of issuing tickets, the petitioner found the folded tickets, issued them, and thereafter, he corrected the mistake in the statistical report. Learned counsel further submits that the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent, and the Labour Court have taken hyper-technical view of the matter and the same resulted in denial of livelihood to the petitioner. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the charges framed against the petitioner as to reissue of tickets is grave in nature and it was proved beyond any pale of doubt. He contends that in the domestic enquiry, the evidence was mostly in the form of records and since the statistical report clearly demonstrates the misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the punishment of termination from services was in force. He submits that the Labour Court has undertaken extensive discussion and no interference with it, is warranted in the writ petition. The allegation against the petitioner was as to reissue of two tickets with the denomination of Rs.1.75 p. The charge sheet was issued on 29.07.1996. It reads as under: i) “For having failed to complete ticket issues within one fare stage, which is misconduct on your part vide Reg.No.28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. ii) Checked and found a batch of two (02) passengers travelling with ticket bearing No.289/694442 and 694446 of Rs.2.25 denomination E.2 and 576/086118 and 119 of Rs.1.75 denomination E.2 as a combination tickets since Rs.4/- denomination not available in the tray. Who boarded in your bus at Ranigunj and bound for Damber factory i.e. ex- stage No.1 to 10. The tickets numbers issued to the passengers of Rs.2.25 denomination are correct whereas Rs.1.75 denomination tickets are issued and accounted in the S.R. previous trip i.e. issued while coming to Ranigunj from Medchal against stage No.7 and thus issued used tickets, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” iii) For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to a batch of (07) seven passengers found travelling without tickets, who boarded in your bus at Bowinpally and bound for Medchal, Ex-stage No.4 to 14. Which is misconduct on your part vide Reg.No.28(vi) (a) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1963. iv) For having closed tickets No. of all denominations upto stage No.6 i.e. Jeedimetala, without completing the tickets issues to the above passenger, which is misconduct on your part vide REg.No.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” It is only charge No.2, which is grave enough. In case the petitioner has consciously reissued the tickets, after they were issued in another trip, the punishment certainly can be imposed upon him. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that there was heavy rush in the bus and in the process two tickets bearing Nos.118 and 119 got folded, by the time he was closing the tray after stage No.6, and unmindful of that, he entered the number 120 at the starting point. He submits that when the tickets were very much in the tray, he has issued them and cannot be said that those tickets were reissued. This aspect of the matter was not dealt with, either at the domestic enquiry or by the Labour Court. Had the petitioner entertained the idea of reissuing the tickets, a different picture altogether would have emerged. Even according to the respondents, the tickets with denomination of Rs.2.25 p. were genuine. For reasons best known to them, the Corporation did not supply the tickets with proper denomination and the petitioner has the necessity to issue the combination tickets. It is not uncommon that certain tickets get folded and the task of a conductor working on a busy sub-urban route, to close the S.R., at frequent intervals, is indeed very difficult. The fact that nothing was pointed out when the check has taken place and the allegation was made four days after the check, is a factor, which needs to be taken into account. Even assuming that the charge against the petitioner was technically proved, the Labour Court was under obligation to exercise its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act. The punishment imposed upon him must be proportionate to the nature of allegation. Every minor deviation from the prescribed conduct, cannot by itself, entail in serious punishment denying the petitioner and his family of the livelihood. This Court is of the view that the reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages and imposition of punishment of withholding of one increment would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed directing that, a) the Award in I.D.No.203 of 2000 of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, is set aside; b) The order, dated 17.12.1996, passed by the 2nd respondent, removing the petitioner from service, is set aside; c) The petitioner shall be reinstated into service without back wages, but with continuity of service; and d) The petitioner shall not be entitled to attendant benefits, for the period, upto the date of reinstatement. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21.12.2010. GJ