HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETIITON No. 25957 OF 2006 DATED 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN N.V. Ramana ….Petitioner and The State of AP, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.ii) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETIITON No. 25957 OF 2006 ORDER: Challenging the Award dated 9.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 5 of 2004, the petitioner-workman filed the present Writ Petition. By the said Award, the Labour Court upheld the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner-workman. The petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in the year 1998 and later his services were regularized in the year 1990. While so, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with certain cash and ticket irregularities allegedly committed by him while he was conducting the bus service en route ‘Kovvur--Dwaraka Tirumala’. Pursuant to the same, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 12.4.2001. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge memo on 17.4.2001. Dissatisfied with the same, an enquiry was conducted and thereupon the petitioner-workman was removed from service by order dated 3.1.2002. Questioning the said removal order, the petitioner-workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No. 5 of 2004. During the pendency of the Industrial Dispute, the petitioner-workman did not choose to question the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the APSRTC. As such, the Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 proceeded to examine whether the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are based on evidence. The Labour Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, confirmed the removal order passed by the APSRTC. Hence the present Writ Petition The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had collected the fare from first two batches of passengers and given them correct tickets, however, those passengers kept the correct tickets somewhere and shown previous tickets which were in their possession and that one of the passengers though purchased the ticket to go to Tallapudi, he did not alight at Tallapudi and continued the journey without any further ticket. He asserted that APSRTC had not obtained the statements and addresses from the other passengers at the time of checking so as to call them as witnesses at the time of enquiry. He argued that the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner and the Labour Court failed to exercise its power under Section 11-A of the ID Act 1947 in the proper perspective. The material on record would disclose that the petitioner had not submitted the explanation at the spot itself, instead he submitted the same well after five days of the check. The petitioner had signed on the statements of the passengers recorded by the checking officials stating to be true and correct. The petitioner did not deny those statements in his cross-examination. On thorough examination of the statements of the passengers and one of the checking officials, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had collected the correct fares from the passengers of Charge Nos. 1 and 2 and had issued tickets to them which pertained to the previous service conducted by him with a palpable intention to misappropriate the collected amount and that with the same intention, he had given less denomination of ticket to the passenger of Charge No.3 and thereby caused loss of revenue to the APSRTC. As regards the other contention of the petitioner that the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate the charges levelled against him, the law on this point is well settled that in cases involving misappropriation of funds, whatever be the quantum of the amount misappropriated, the inevitable result would be loss of confidence of the employer in such an employee. The Supreme Court in Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs. Hoti Lal {(2003)3SCC 605} observed that if the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently and that misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. It was further observed that where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case cited supra, the contention of the petitioner merits no consideration. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUOTSH MOHUNTA Dated 19th September, 2011. MsnrO