THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26087 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting notional increments in the light of the order of the Labour Court passed in I.D.No.7 of 1992 dated 22.2.1994 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to release the notional increments. Petitioner is workman and respondents are management. Petitioner while working as Conductor in the Respondent-Corporation, and while conducting Bus No.AAZ 2444 on the route from Kothagudem to Mangoor at about 14.50 hrs., a check was exercised between stages 15 and 16 and the checking officials found certain cash and ticket irregularities. Thereafter, petitioner was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: “1. For having violated the rule of ‘Issue and Start’ which is a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to 9 (nine) individual passengers, having boarded your bus at Bandarigudem and found alighting without tickets at Manguru, ex-stages 15 to 16, which is a misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having already closed the tray numbers of all denominations against stage No.16 without issuing the above tickets, which is a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the said charges. Having not satisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, submitted his report. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the enquiry report as well as on his own findings, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and therefore, after completing all the formalities, removed the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court at Warangal in I.D.No.7 of 1992. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the enquiry officer wrongly noted that the petitioner deposed that (9) passengers denied payment of fare, but actually the petitioner deposed that the passengers delayed payment. Petitioner also denied that he attempted to close the S.R. Apart from that the charges are very trivial in nature and even if the charges are proved, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The respondent-management filed rejoinder stating that the past conduct of the petitioner was not good. He was awarded with several punishments – censured five times, penalty imposed once, increments postponed once, suspended once and removed from service. None were examined before the Labour Court and on the basis of the material available before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that for the charges framed against the petitioner, punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, therefore while setting aside the removal order, directed the respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any back wages and directed to impose punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said award, petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the Labour Court while awarding continuity of service, erred in not allowing increments notionally from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that in the spot explanation given by the petitioner, he had categorically stated that there was a check at stage No.16 and at that time, nine passengers were found alighting without tickets, from who he did not collect the fare amount. The checking officials collected fare from each of them and the petitioner closed the S.R. If there was no bad intention on the part of the petitioner, he could have collected the fare amount from these passengers even before the Bus reached stage No.16, but the petitioner did not do so. These all would show that the petitioner was not diligent in attending to his duties. The charges, as such, cannot be said to be trivial in its nature. However, while upholding the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, the Labour Court, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, passed award. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling interference of this Court in granting further relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 6.12.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26087 of 2000 6.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26087 of 2000 Date: 6th December, 2010 Between: K.Krishna Reddy .. Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Manuguru Depot, Khammam district & others. .. Respondents