THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.15740 OF 2001 ORDER: The petitioner, who was working as conductor in the respondent- Corporation was found to have committed ticketing irregularities while conducting bus-bearing No.8463 on route Markodu-Kothagudem on 07.04.1992. A charge was framed against him, which is as follows:- “For having collected an amount of Rs.200/- from a passenger excluding the ticket fare of Rs.8-25 towards luggage of 30 bags of Ground Nuts and for having issued worth of tickets of Rs.30/- against the issue of Rs.60/- to a passenger who boarded your bus at Markodu and bound for Kothagudem ex-stages.13 to 1, thus for having less issued for Rs.30/-, since the required amount already collected at boarding point and also arranged to refund an amount of Rs.140/- to the above passengers, which is a misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg.1963.” At the time of check the petitioner gave spot explanation stating that the passenger paid him Rs.8-25 towards fare, and Rs.200/- towards luggage, for which the petitioner issued luggage ticket to the extent of Rs.30/- and he endorsed due on the ticket. During the enquiry conducted by the respondent-Corporation petitioner’s defence was that the checking officials threatened the passenger though he had not paid the amount as mentioned in the charge. On account of pressure by the checking officials he has stated to have paid the amounts as found in the charge memo. The said defence however, was not accepted by the Enquiry officer in view of the spot explanation of the petitioner and as the charge was proved, show cause notice for removal was issued to him. Subsequently, he was removed by orders of the disciplinary authority dated 02.07.1992. The appeal as well as the review having failed, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal, which has examined the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the statement regarding payments made by him were consistent before the enquiry officer also. The Tribunal, therefore, found the evidence on record that the finding of the charge having been proved was sustainable. Similarly, the punishment of removal was found to be commensurate with a gravity of misconduct and it was further recorded that the petitioner is not entitled to any lenient view. The said Award dated 11.09.1997 is questioned in this writ petition after about four years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very strenuously contended that the pressurized statement of the passenger at the instance of the checking officials, resulted in implication of the petitioner though he is not guilty of the charge. Learned counsel also stated that the discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “the Act”) is not properly exercised by the Labour Court. After giving my anxious considerations to the contentions and after examining the award of the Industrial Tribunal, I am of the view that the findings reached by the Tribunal on point No.1 and 2 require no interference, inasmuch as, both the said conclusions are based on the evidence consistently recorded at the time of check as well as during the enquiry. On the contrary, the stand taken by the petitioner was found to be inconsistent with his statement recorded at the time of spot explanation. The misconduct being serious, lenient view was not warranted under Section 11-A of the Act as recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. The writ petition, therefore, is meritless and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed but however, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 2nd December, 2010 bud THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.15740 of 2001 Dated:02.12.2010