IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4540 of 2000 Between: APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND G.Chandraiah, S/o. Lingaiah, Dilsukhnagar Depot, H.No.16-11-532, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, 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 in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in I.D.No.110 of 1997 dt 27-10-1998 published in G.O.Rt.No.2288 dt 22-11-1998 on the file of the Hon'ble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and quash the Award and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent : MR.A.SRINIVASA SARMA The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, through its Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, challenging the validity of the award dated 27.10.1998, passed by Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.110 of 1997. 2. The respondent herein was appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation on 20.08.1980. On 13.06.1996, while he was conducting the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-5995 on the route from Karmanghat to Secunderabad, a check was conducted at Stage No.9 by the checking officials. As certain cash and ticket irregularities were found during the check, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, by issuing a charge sheet, dated 20.06.1996, with the following four charges : “1. For having failed to issue tickets within one fare stage and also failed to observe the T.I.C. point enroute. 2. For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to ten (10) individual passengers found travelling without tickets from Shivam to Sec’bad Station ex- stages 7/8 to 11. 3. For having failed to collect fare and issue tickets to ten (10) individual passengers found travelling without tickets from Ramnagar to Sec’bad Station ex-stages 8 to 11. The above charges constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. For having performing your duties without MTC 141 Card, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. The respondent has filed his explanation denying the charges levelled against him. Dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent, the disciplinary authority has ordered for conducting an inquiry against the respondent, by appointing an inquiry officer. After completion of inquiry, the inquiry officer has submitted his report, holding that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. Based on the said inquiry report, a final order was passed on 16.06.1997, removing the respondent from the service of the Corporation. Against the said order of removal, the respondent has preferred an appeal and review before the Appellate and review authorities, but both the appeal and review were also ended in dismissal. 4. Thereafter, the respondent has raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.110 of 1997, by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Though no oral evidence was adduced before the Tribunal, but documentary evidence in Exs.M-1 to M-21 were marked on behalf of the Management. The Tribunal, on re-appreciating the evidence on record, has recorded a finding to the effect that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. However, on the ground that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the gravity of charges, the Tribunal has directed for reinstatement of workman with continuity of service, full back wages and attendant benefits, but it has ordered for withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation and also the learned counsel Sri A.Srinivas Sarma, appearing for the respondent. 6. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation that as much as the charges levelled against the respondent were held proved during the domestic inquiry proceedings, and the Tribunal, having approved the said findings of the inquiry officer, has erred in ordering for reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service, full backwages and attendant benefits. In this connection, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of J.K.Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P.Agrawal[1]. 7. On the other hand, Sri A.Srinivas Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while passing the impugned award by modifying the punishment of removal to that of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect, and therefore, he contends that there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 8. In the instant case, the sum and substance of the charges levelled against the respondent is that he has failed to collect fare and issue tickets to about 20 passengers, who boarded the bus at different stages. Therefore, from the above charges, it is evident that the respondent has not collected the fare from the passengers in question, and also did not issue tickets to them. On account of such misconduct, though there was no attempt on the part of the respondent to divert the revenue of the Corporation, but the same has resulted in heavy monitory loss to the Corporation. 9. In the disciplinary proceedings, the inquiry officer, having examined the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. Even a perusal of the impugned award shows that though the Tribunal has also confirmed the said findings arrived at by the inquiry officer, but however, by holding that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges, has reduced the punishment, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that when the charges levelled against the respondent were held proved by both the inquiry officer and the Tribunal, there is no reason in awarding full back wages along with the benefit of continuity of service and attendant benefits. 10. In the case of J.K.Synthetics Ltd. (supra 1), relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the competent Tribunal is issuing directions for reinstatement of workman in exercise of powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, on the ground that the punishment awarded is excessive and the employee deserves a lesser punishment, it does not mean that the employer was wrong, or that the dismissal of workman was either illegal or invalid. By doing so, the Tribunal is merely exercising its discretion to award a lesser punishment. Till such power is exercised by the Tribunal, the dismissal order passed against the workman is valid and is in force. It was further held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement itself is a consequential benefit arising out of imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period for which the workman has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent/employee for his misconduct, and at the same time, punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. 11. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred above, this Court is of the view that this is not a case where the respondent is entitled to back wages. As it is stated that the respondent was already reinstated into service pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the award is modified to the extent that the respondent is not entitled to any back wages. The other reliefs granted by the Tribunal with regard to reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, are confirmed. 12. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal to the extent of granting full back wages, is set aside, and the award to the extent of reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service and attendant benefits, is confirmed. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th February 2009. Va/ajr [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433