IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 21654 of 1999 Between: APSRTC, rep. by its Depot Manager, Barkatpura Depot, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri D. Laxmaiah S/o Ramulu R/o H.No. 8-100/1, Near Govt. Hospital Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District. .....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 in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the Presiding Oﬃcer, Labour Court-1, Hyd. in I.D.No.31 of 1997 dt. 28.08.98 published in G.O.Rt.No.1734 dt. 6.10.1998 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioner :K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent :NONE APPEARED. The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 21654 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), through its Depot Manager, Barkatpura Depot, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the award of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, dated 28th August 1998, passed in I.D.No.31 of 1997. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, as there is no appearance on behalf of the workman, I have perused the record. In the notice sent by the oﬃce, there is a clear endorsement of the postal authorities that the respondent has refused to receive notice. In view of such an endorsement, the notice is deemed to have been served on the respondent. 3. The respondent herein is working as a Conductor in APSRTC. On the ground that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the bus on Route No.1 from Secunderabad Station to Afzalgung on 10.10.1996, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. In the above said disciplinary proceedings, a Charge Memo dated 15.10.1996 was issued. The respondent has ﬁled his explanation denying the charges, but however, based on the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer in the domestic inquiry proceedings, he was removed from service by order dated 30th January 1997, passed by the disciplinary authority. Though the respondent has appealed against the order of dismissal, but his appeal was rejected by order, dated 14.03.1997 by the appellate authority, and thereafter, his Review application was also dismissed by order, dated 28th May 1997. Thereafter, the respondent has raised an Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, by ﬁling an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Before the Industrial Tribunal, during the process of inquiry and trial, a memo was ﬁled on behalf of the respondent-workman to the eﬀect that he has not questioned the inquiry proceedings in the domestic inquiry. In view of the said memo, the Tribunal upheld the domestic inquiry. But however, by examining the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent with reference to the charges levelled against him, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that having regard to the defence putforth by the employee, there was no criminal intention on his part, and as such, punishment of removal is harsh. The Tribunal was of the view that stoppage of two increments without cumulative eﬀect would meet the ends of justice. By recording the aforesaid ﬁndings, the Tribunal has ordered for reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service, with full backwages and attendant beneﬁts, but ordered for stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. 4. In the disciplinary proceedings, three charges were framed against the respondent, which read as under : “1. For having failed to observe the TIC point and complete the ticket issues within a fare stage, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 2. For having failed to collect the ticket fare and issue tickets to a passenger travelling without ticket who boarded your bus at Charminar X Roads bound for CBS ex-stages 6/5 to 3/2, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 3. For having collected ticket fare from a passenger and issued sold ticket which was sold out on 09.10.1996 (re-issue ticket) No.229/527622 of Rs.2.75 ps. denomination, E.1, punched at Stage No.8 who boarded your bus at Secunderabad Station bound for CBS ex-stages 8 to 3/2, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” Charge No.1 is of general nature, whereas, charge Nos.2 and 3 are specific in nature. 5. Under charge No.2, it is alleged that the respondent had failed to collect fare and issue ticket to a passenger who boarded the bus at Charminar Cross roads bound for CBS ex-stages 6/5 to 3/2. Under Charge No.3, it is alleged that from one passenger, he has collected fair, but has issued old ticket, which was sold one day earlier to the date of inspection i.e. on 09.10.1996. 6. With reference to the 3rd charge, it was the case of the respondent-workman that the said passenger, after noticing the inspecting oﬃcials, had picked up an old ticket, which was lying on the floor of the bus at the corner. So far as the 2nd charge is concerned, it was his case that a passenger got into the bus at Secunderabad Station and took ticket up to RTC Cross roads, but he was travelling further, without ticket, and as such, he could not verify the same in view of pressure of work. 7. The Tribunal, though has recorded a ﬁnding that the domestic inquiry was valid, but however, while considering the quantum of punishment, it has recorded a ﬁnding that the explanation oﬀered by the respondent-workman with regard to Charge No.3, is quite possible, and that merely basing on the statement of a passenger, the charge cannot be taken as wholly true. Further, with reference to Charge No.3, the Tribunal has also noted that having issued valid tickets to more than 40 to 50 passengers, the respondent- workman could not have issued an old ticket to a single passenger. Taking the over all situation into consideration, the Tribunal, upon exercising the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Act, opined that the ends of justice would be met, if the punishment of removal is substituted by a lesser punishment of stoppage of two increments. But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, while reducing the punishment, the Tribunal has erred in awarding the attendant beneﬁts and full backwages for the period during which the respondent was out of service. Though there was no absolute bar for the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence and see whether the charges are proved or not, but however, in this case, the Tribunal itself has categorically recorded a ﬁnding that the domestic inquiry was valid and that the same was recorded in view of the memo ﬁled by the respondent- workman himself. Though the evidence on probabilities of the case was discussed vis-à-vis the charges framed against the workman, but however, while reducing the punishment in exercise of its powers, there is no reason for awarding full backwages in such a situation. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that on an earlier occasion, the respondent was removed from service on such charges, but however, he was reinstated pursuant to an order of the appellate authority. The very fact that the lesser punishment of stoppage of two increments is awarded, shows that the Tribunal itself has accepted the misconduct to some extent with reference to the charges framed against the workman, and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought not have awarded full backwages and attendant benefits. In normal course, the matter is to be remitted back for fresh consideration by the Tribunal, but taking into account the fact that the order of removal was passed as early as on 30th January 1997, and this writ petition is pending before this Court for the last about 9 years, I am of the opinion that the interests of justice would be met if the petitioner is denied the attendant beneﬁts during the period for which he was out of service, and he was also awarded only half of the backwages. Consequently, the award under challenge is modiﬁed to the eﬀect that the order of reinstatement is conﬁrmed only with half of the backwages without attendant beneﬁts, but with continuity of service. The continuity of service shall be reckoned for the purpose of the terminal beneﬁts at the stage of retirement. 8. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th September 2008 ajr