IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21529 of 1999 Between: 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. 2 The Divsional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Chairman Divisional, Hyderabad. 3 Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad City Region Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri M.L.Ali, S/o. Rajab Ali, C/o. S.A.K Mynoddin, TRT.123, Jawaharnagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in I.D.No.70 of 1997 dt.16.11.98 published in G.O.Rt.No.2161 dt.11.12.98 on the ﬁle of the Honble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioners :K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 21529 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) through its Depot Manager, Falaknuma Depot, Hyderabad, challenging the validity of the award passed by the Presiding Oﬃcer of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, dated 16th November 1998, in I.D.No.70 of 1997. 2. The respondent – workman is working as a Conductor in APSRTC and he was appointed in the year 1976. When he was conducting the bus on Route No.70 on 27th October 1993, a check was exercised at Stage No.4/3 by the Head Quarters Enforcement Squad at about 11.10 hours and having noticed some cash and ticket irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. In the disciplinary proceedings, altogether ﬁve charges were framed, but it appears that the main charges are Charge Nos.2 and 3. The charges framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings read as under : “1. For having violated the rule to complete the ticket issue within one fare stage of TIC point towards Teegalakunta which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi-a) of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to issue ticket to a passenger found alighting without ticket at Md.Shukur Kaman who have boarded the bus at Charminar Ex-stages 4 to 4/3 evenafter collecting the requisite fare of Rs.0.75 ps. at boarding place of Charminar which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (x) of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to the lady passengers found traveling without tickets from Charminar to Fathe Darwaza ex-stages 4 to 4/3, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. For having failed to produce the MTD 141 card at the time of check which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 5. For having refused to receive the charge memo issued by the checking oﬃcials at the time of check which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.No.28(viii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. When the charge memo was served, the respondent – workman has ﬁled explanation denying the said charges, and therefore, an inquiry oﬃcer was appointed to conduct inquiry. The inquiry oﬃcer who conducted the inquiry, has submitted his report by recording a ﬁnding to the eﬀect that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, and based on the same, he was removed from service by an order dated 17th March 1994 by the disciplinary authority. The said orders of removal were conﬁrmed by the appellate authority by an order dated 18th July 1994 and were further conﬁrmed by the review authority by an order dated 24th September 1996. Aggrieved by the order of removal as conﬁrmed by the appellate and review authorities, the respondent – workman has raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.70 of 1997 by ﬁling an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was let in by either of the parties, but however, documentary evidence in Exs.M-1 to M-19 was marked on behalf of the management. 5. The Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence on record and also referring to the proceedings in the domestic inquiry, has arrived at the ﬁnding that the charges levelled against the respondent-workman were not proved and it has also categorically stated that the domestic inquiry proceedings are conducted in a mechanical manner, ignoring the explanation oﬀered by the workman. By recording such ﬁndings, the Tribunal has allowed the I.D. by setting aside the order of removal and directed for reinstatement of respondent with full backwages and continuity of service. 6. Heard the learned Standing counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and also perused the material on record, the inquiry report in the domestic inquiry and the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. From the charges levelled against the respondent, it appears that mainly the proceedings were initiated noticing the cash and ticket irregularities at the time of check. The main allegations levelled against the workman are under Charge Nos.2 and 3. In charge No.2, it was alleged that during the inspection at Ex-Stage No.4/3, a passenger was found alighting the bus without ticket and the fare of Rs.0.75 paise was collected by the respondent– workman, but however, did not issue ticket to him. With reference to Charge No.3, the allegation is that the respondent–workman has failed to collect fare and issue tickets to two lady passengers who were travelling from Charminar to Fathe Darwaza ex-stages 4 to 4/3. In the disciplinary proceedings, the main defence of the respondent–workman is that the passenger covered by charge No.2 had boarded the bus when it was proceeding at Himmatpura, where there were speed-breakers but he has tendered only Rs.0.50 paise and when the respondent-workman was insisting for payment of balance fare of Rs.0.25 paise for issuance of ticket, the other two passengers, who were covered under Charge No.3, have also boarded the bus. It is his defence that even before reaching one fare stage thereafter, the check was exercised. In the inquiry proceedings, the statement of the Driver of the bus was recorded and it is marked as Ex.M-12, which supports the case of the workman. Though the passenger covered by charge No.2 was examined by the workman in the inquiry proceedings, but his deposition was not taken into consideration while recording a ﬁnding that the charges levelled against the workman are proved. Even with reference to charge No.3, the Tribunal, having considered the evidence on record, has recorded a ﬁnding that the two lady passengers covered by charge No.3 have boarded the bus after TIC at Shalibanda, on Driver stopping the bus, whereas it was the case of the workman-Conductor that when the bus was proceeding at Himmatpura where there were speed-breakers, the passenger covered under charge No.2 had boarded the bus, and while he was insisting for payment of Rs.0.25 paise which was short-tendered by the said passenger, these two lady passengers have also boarded the bus, and thereafter, even before passing one fare stage, the check has taken place. 8. From a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the ﬁndings recorded therein are in conformity with the evidence on record and valid reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal for accepting the defence taken by the workman for not issuing tickets to the passengers covered under charge Nos.2 and 3. Even taking the charges as it is, except charge No.2, no other charge relates to mis- appropriation of any amount. Even with reference to charge No.2 about misappropriation of Rs.0.75 paise, there was valid explanation oﬀered by the workman, and inspite of the same, without considering the evidence on record, the order of removal was passed, which has been rightly set aside by the Tribunal. Even with reference to other charges also, there is no evidence to show either the workman has violated the rule of ‘issue and start’ or he has not produced the MTD 141 card, or he has not received the charge memo, which are covered by charge Nos.1, 4 and 5. From the award passed by the Tribunal, I am convinced that the ﬁndings recorded therein are in conformity with the oral and documentary evidence on record. There is no illegality committed by the Tribunal in passing the award, so as to interfere with the same in this petition ﬁled under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is also to be noted in this case that the respondent–workman has taken the stand in his explanation that he was a senior Conductor having rendered 18 years of service by the time of initiation of inquiry and that he had a clean record earlier. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not ﬁnd any substance in the writ petition, warranting interference with the award passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st October 2008 ajr