THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.7582 OF 2002 O R D E R Aggrieved by the award dated 8.11.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.173/2000 in conﬁrming the order of removal passed by the respondent – The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District against the petitioner, who was working as Conductor prior to his removal, filed the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was working as Conductor from 10.2.1989 in the respondent – Corporation. While the petitioner was acting as service conductor on the bus bearing no.AEZ 1468 from Yerrasamanthavalasa to Parvathipuram special trip on 7.4.1999, the bus was checked at Anasabhadra village and it was found that the petitioner failed to issue ticket to one passenger out of two passengers and out of them one was traveling and one was alighting at Anasabhadra request stop between stage nos.8 and 7. It is alleged that the petitioner collected Rs.2/- instead of Rs.3.50 from the passenger to whom the ticket was not issued. The case of the petitioner is that he was not doing well on that day. He was issued charge sheet on 15.4.1999 and he was kept under suspension on the said date and he submitted his explanation on 22.4.1999. Not being satisﬁed with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty and after issuing show cause notice and receiving the explanation, the petitioner was removed from service on 9.7.1999 and the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he raised industrial dispute and the ended in dismissal. 3. The case of the workman is that the ticketless passenger was brought by the TTIs and he did not board the bus and at Yerrasamanthavalasa only one passenger boarded the bus to go to Parvathipuram and the petitioner collected Rs.8.50 and issued ticket and entered the same in the SR. The further case of the petitioner is that there was no passenger to get down at Anasabhadra and the bus was also stopped at Anasabhadra, a request stop and the old man who is alleged to be the ticketless passenger has not boarded the bus at all. Therefore, the petitioner sought to set aside the order of removal and order reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 4. On the other hand, the case of the management of the corporation is that the petitioner without issuing ticket to a passenger even after collecting the fare of Rs.2-00, allowed to alight at Anasabhadra, the checking point and the passenger has also given the statement and it was recorded through the driver of the service bus and the workman attested on it and the workman did not give any spot explanation and as the charge is proved, he was removed from service. Therefore, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal after framing appropriate issues and considering the material on record held that the charge against the petitioner is proved and holding that the punishment of removal as not disproportionate, dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the case of the petitioner that the ticketless passenger who was alleged to be alighting at Anasabhadra has not boarded the bus at all and he was brought by the TTIs in a jeep and the so called passenger when he was examined before the enquiry oﬃcer also deposed to this eﬀect and the Tribunal by not considering this aspect, conﬁrmed the ﬁnding of the enquiry oﬃcer with regard to the guilt of the petitioner. She submitted that even assuming that the petitioner was involved in cash and ticket irregularities, the amount involved is only Rs.2/- and for this meager amount, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate and hence sought to modify the impugned award by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation supporting the impugned award, sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The charge against the petitioner is as under: For having collected Rs.2-00 only instead of Rs.2-50 towards the requisite fare from a passenger who boarded your bus at Yerrasamanthavalasa and bound for Anasabhadra i.e., Ex.stages 8 to 8/7 and failed to issue ticket at all to the said passenger who was found alighting at Anasabhadra at the time of check while you are conducting the service of 06.30 hrs. Parvathipuram Adaru D/o Service on 7.4.1999 with vehicle no.AEZ 1468 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(vi)(a)(ix)(a), (x) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 9. The charge against the petitioner is that he collected Rs.2-00 from a passenger who boarded the bus at Yerraasamanthavalas and bound for Anasabhadera ex.stges 8 to 8/7, when the fare was Rs.2-50 and further he did not issue ticket to him and the said passenger was found alighting the bus at Anasabhadra at the time of check. The passenger gave the spot statement under Ex.M-1 to the eﬀect that he boarded the bus at Yerrasamanthavalasa and bound to Anansabhaddra and he paid Rs.2/- at the boarding point to the conductor, but he failed to issue ticket and while he was getting down, the TTIs checked and he was made to pay Rs.0-50 extra towards fare and he was also ﬁned to pay Rs.20/-. This statement of the passenger was recorded by the driver of the bus and the petitioner attested the same. The petitioner did not give any spot explanation. Though the said passenger who was examined by the petitioner before the enquiry oﬃcer deposed that he was brought by the checking oﬃcials, his statement under Ex.M-11 was eschewed from consideration by the enquiry oﬃcer on the ground that it was found that the petitioner approached the passenger through the President of the village at the instance of the president, he gave statement. It is also to be seen that the passenger paid the diﬀerence of fare of Re.0-50 and also paid the ﬁne of Rs.20/-. If the passenger had not traveled in the bus, he would have deﬁnitely protested for payment of the ﬁne. This, he did not do. The case of the petitioner is that the checking oﬃcials brought the passenger, who is an old man, in a jeep. This averment of the petitioner is an after thought. The petitioner could not lead any evidence to prove any motive on the part of the checking oﬃcials to implicate the petitioner and moreover as noted above, the passenger paid the ﬁne and also the diﬀerence of fare and he gave spot statement that he paid Rs.2/- and the petitioner failed to issue ticket. The statement of the passenger before the enquiry oﬃcer was rightly eschewed by the enquiry oﬃcer from consideration in light of the above narrated circumstances and also in view of the fact that he deposed at the instance of the President of the village, whom the petitioner has approached. Therefore, considering all these circumstances, the enquiry oﬃcer rightly found the petitioner guilty of the charge and the same has been rightly conﬁrmed by the Tribunal and this being a ﬁnding of fact based on evidence, cannot be interfered with under the writ jurisdiction. 10. Coming to the proportionality of the punishment, it could be seen that the amount involved is only Rs.2/- and though the quantum of the amount may not be criteria, the other circumstances needs to be considered. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1989 and he was removed from service in the year 1999. Further there is no material on record that he had any previous conduct of the present nature. It is to be noticed that the minor lapse shall not lead to total deprivation of his livelihood of the employee and also that of the dependants of the employee. The punishment imposed shall be proportionate to the misconduct committed by the delinquent and shall not be disproportionate. In the present case, the punishment of removal from service for the proved misconduct of the petitioner involving cash and ticket irregularity for an amount to Rs.2/-, is shocking disproportionate. The petitioner is out of service since 1999 and the mental agony suﬀered by him and his family can be visualized. The Tribunal has not considered these facts and also has not recorded any sound reasons for not exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In these circumstances, I feel it just and proper to modify the award of the Tribunal by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as under: “The respondent – Corporation shall reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with continuity of service, but without back wages.” 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS --------------------------------- 15--11--2008