THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1761 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 19.11.2001 passed in I.D.No.28 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal. Petitioner is the workman. 2nd respondent is the management. It appears, the workman was appointed as a Revenue Cashier/Bill Collector in the year 1981 in the organization of the 2nd respondent and his services were regularized in the year 1983-1984. While that being so, on the allegation of misappropriation of funds collected from the consumers and causing loss to the revenues of the respondent Corporation, the workman was suspended from service by order dated 21.09.1992 and was issued with a charges sheet dated 21.09.1992 leveling two charges involving an amount of Rs.1,084/-. After conducting a detailed enquiry, ultimately, the workman was removed from service by order dated 17.02.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the workman approached this Court and filed W.P.No.27831 of 1995, which was disposed of directing the workman to approach the Tribunal for proper adjudication of the matter. Pursuant thereto, the workman filed a claim petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘I.D.Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.28 of 2000. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer failed to follow principles of natural justice and also failed to appreciate the evidence in correct lines. It was the case of the management before the Labour Court that the workman misappropriated the amount collected by him from the consumers, that the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry by giving reasonable opportunity to the workman and ultimately found the charges proved against the workman, that the workman intentionally tampered duplicate P.R. by altering the amounts to lesser figures and deposited less amount and thereby misappropriated the funds collected from the consumers and caused loss to the revenues of the Corporation, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Before the Labour Court, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on either side. After detailed examination of the entire material placed before it and re-appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that fair and reasonable opportunity was given to the workman during domestic enquiry, that the charges are proved against the workman for the act of misappropriation of the revenues by tampering the duplicate P.Rs., and that the punishment of removal imposed on the workman is proportionate and shall not be interfered with in any manner by invoking powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act and accordingly, by award dated 19.12.2001, dismissed the I.D. confirming the order of removal dated 17.02.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that firstly the alleged amount of misappropriation was only Rs.1,084/-, in all the charges put together, and the enquiry was not properly conducted. He also submitted that absolutely there is no evidence to hold that the workman was guilty of the charges and even assuming that there is some negligence on the part of the workman in functioning as a Bill Collector, the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court, confirming the order of removal, is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that the charges being grave in nature, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the workman cannot be said be illegal and the Labour Court also rightly confirmed the same. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. The sum and substance of the charges leveled against the petitioner are that he altered the amounts in duplicate P.Rs, in respect of consumers of different villages, prior to remittance of the amount to the respondent Corporation, thereby caused loss of Rs.1,084/- to the Corporation. Even if the charges are proved, as held by the disciplinary authority and the Labour Court, the same may not warrant removal from service, unless and until some past instances of the workman behaving in the same manner are found. No such past instances have been referred to in the impugned award. There is no dispute that the workman had rendered 15 years of unblemished service and that, for the first time, he has committed the alleged misconduct. Apart from this, before the enquiry was initiated, the workman has made good the amount of Rs.1,084/-, which is alleged to have been misappropriated by him. In these circumstances, the Labour Court ought not to have confirmed the order of removal. Therefore, it would be just and proper to modify the impugned award as under: “The order of removal from service dated 17.02.1995 passed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner-workman is set aside and the 2nd respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages and other attendant benefits. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 10.02.2011 v v