IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21143 of 2001 DATE:03.12.2010 Between: K.Rajender …… Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21143 of 2001 ORDER : The petitioner who was working as conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C, aggrieved by award dated 05.07.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D. No.106 of 1999, filed this writ petition seeking writ of Certiorari in respect of the said award. The labour Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and refused the relief of his reinstatement after setting aside his termination from service. 2) The petitioner while conducting the bus from Mumbai to Jagtial, issued tickets to three passengers who boarded the bus at Panivel for going to Mukhed after collecting Rs.522/- from them. Each ticket consisted of 4 slips of tickets of Rs.100/-, Rs.50/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.4/-. But the petitioner did not punch ticket slips of denomination of Rs.100/- each issued to batch of three passengers. Meanwhile there was check of the bus by the checking staff and they notice non- punching of the tickets by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.100/- each. In the spot explanation, the conductor stated that he could not understand Marathi language in which the passengers were speaking and that passengers could not understand his Telugu and that there was some confusion in which he could not punch those ticket slips of Rs.100/- each. Thus, there is no dispute on the part of the petitioner that he did not punch three tickets of the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Even though three tickets of Rs.100/- each were not punched, issuance of those three tickets was noted in the statistical return maintained by the petitioner in the bus. The enquiry officer from the fact of non-punching of tickets, came to the conclusion that there is possibility of re-issuing the said tickets to other passengers while the conductor collecting those tickets from the disembarking passengers at their destination after correcting figures in the statistical return. Therefore, in the domestic enquiry the petitioner was found guilty and consequently his services were terminated by the Management. The said termination order, when questioned by the petitioner, was confirmed by the Labour Court in the impugned award. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that it is not the case of non issuing of tickets nor failing to issue tickets after collecting fare from the passengers and that non-punching of issued tickets even though their issue was mentioned in the statistical return, does not amount to misconduct as contemplated under Regulation 28 of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Conduct) Regulations and that finding of the domestic enquiry officer that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct under Regulation No.28(vi)(a) of the said conduct Regulations, is not a valid finding. The said provision reads as follows: “vi) a) Failure on the part of the Conductor/Booking Clerk to issue valid passengers/luggage ticket, in accordance with the order passed by the Corporation or any other authority under the Corporation, from time to time, before starting or allowing a bus to be started from the point, where such passenger/luggage, boarded or loaded as the case may be in respect of mofussil services, and before passing a Ticket Issue Completion Point, fixed from time to time in respect of City/Town Services”. The above regulation cannot be applied to facts of this case, which is not a case of failure to issue valid passenger tickets. It is further contended by the petitioner’s counsel that punishment of removal under Regulation 9(2) of the A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations cannot be resorted to in the absence of any misconduct. On the other hand, respondents’ counsel placing reliance on Regional Manager, RSRTC V. Ghanshyam Sharma[1] contended that where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a lesser rate than the proper rate, the said acts interalia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors are not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation. The said pronouncement of the Supreme Court has no application herein since this is not a case of the petitioner carrying passengers without ticket or issuing tickets at a lesser rate than the proper rate causing financial loss to the corporation. 4) Even though Regulation 28(vi)(a) of the Conduct Regulations does not apply to this case, still Regulation 28(ix)(a) and Regulation 28(xxiii) and their application herein has to be considered. No doubt, this is not a case of issue of used tickets to passengers as contemplated under Regulation 28(xxiii). As per Regulation 28(ix)(a), gross negligence resulting in or likely to result in serious loss to the Corporation or inconvenience to the public or both, also amounts to misconduct. Loss not only which is already caused but also which is likely to be caused is included as misconduct under Regulation No.28. It is finding of the enquiry officer that there is every likelihood of the petitioner re-issuing the tickets to other passengers after collecting those un-punched ticket slips when the passengers were disembarking the bus and after correcting the statistical return. Therefore, non- punching of tickets issued would likely to cause pecuniary loss to the corporation. Therefore, conduct of the petitioner in not punching the issued tickets, particularly of the higher denomination of Rs.100/- each, is a suspicious conduct on the part of the petitioner which lead to questioning his intentions flowing from the said fact. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not guilty of misconduct in issuing the tickets without punching them. 5) At any rate, imposing punishment of termination for such conduct, in opinion of this Court is grossly disproportionate. The Management should have imposed a lesser punishment than termination, because the Corporation did not in fact suffer any loss. It appears that the petitioner did not learn any lessons even though previously he was terminated from service and later reinstated into service at the intervention of the Labour Court. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is liable to be reinstated, but without back wages and other monetary benefits and on notional service benefits only. 6) In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service without back wages and without other monetary benefits, but on notional service benefits. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 3, 2010 ksh [1] (2002)10 Supreme Court Cases 330