THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No. 284 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in ID No. 75 of 1999, raised by the writ petitioner who was working as a driver with the State owned Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at Madanapalle-II Depot. The writ petitioner appears to have been recruited as a driver in the year 1986. On 11.7.1997, he was assigned to drive a bus on a particular route. However, the conductor and the driver, the petitioner herein, have approached the Controller of the Depot and informed him that the road condition enroute at R.C.Kuruvapalle is in bad shape due to heavy rains and hence it was not motorable at all. The petitioner and the conductor of the bus suggested to the Controller to cancel the trip. However, the depot officials have not agreed to the suggestion of the petitioner and instructed him to operate the bus instead. Further, he was instructed even by the Senior Traffic Inspector of the Depot to operate the bus. Since the bus route was not, however, operated between 6.30 AM to 11 Hours resulting in ultimately cancellation of service for 102 kms distance. The depot officials of the corporation felt that the action of the writ petitioner has resulted in causing financial loss to the corporation and also caused inconvenience to the commuting public. It was further alleged against the writ petitioner that he has not conducted himself properly with the Senior Traffic Inspector, Enquiry Controller of the Depot, during the entire episode. It was further alleged against the petitioner that the door of the chambers of the Senior Traffic Inspector has also been closed in an agitated mood. For these acts of misconduct, the petitioner has been proceeded against as a measure of discipline. A departmental enquiry followed resulting in imposition of punishment of removal from service by the Depot Manager. The appeal and review filed against the said order of punishment have also failed. In those set of circumstances, the Industrial Dispute No. 75 of 1999 has been raised by the petitioner herein. The case of the writ petitioner is that he has no intention whatsoever to cause any inconvenience to the commuting public on 11.7.1997 by not operating the bus service. In fact, with a view to operate the service, he has brought the vehicle from the garage and parked the same on the platform. Only when the conductor has brought to his notice that the road condition enroute was so bad that it was not motorable for the past few months and hence he along with the conductor approached the Controller and the Depot Manager to cancel the trip in question. Without paying any attention whatsoever and without ascertaining in any manner as to whether the claim made by the petitioner and the conductor as to the absolute bad condition of the road, the Controller insisted the service to be operated. Since the Controller has not properly appreciated the possible difficulties enroute in operating the bus on such a bad road, apart from the prospects of the bus itself breaking down, the petitioner and the conductor of the bus tried to persuade the authorities of the Depot to see reason in cancelling the service. In that process, if some heat is generated, according to the learned counsel Ms. Seshu Kumari, appearing for the petitioner, the same is not intended to cause any hurt, but purely intended to dissuade the authorities from operating the service which is not only uneconomical, but is likely to result in break down of the vehicle itself. At any rate, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the imposition of punishment of removal from service by the Depot Manager was too harsh and disproportionate to the proven misconduct. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation in reply contends that it is not for a driver of a service to decline to operate the service and it is for the Controller and Senior Inspector of the Bus Depot, who would gather the correct information with regard to the conditions of the roads and when once they suggests that the bus to be operated the writ petitioner being a driver ought not to have declined to operate the bus and on the other hand he indulged in acts which are subversive of discipline in the organisation. Hence, he submits that the punishment imposed was in fact called for. Alternatively, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the punishment awarded by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is fair enough and does not warrant interference. The facts, which are not in dispute, are these: That on 11.7.1997, the writ petitioner has brought the service bus allotted to him from out of the garage and parked it on the platform with a view to operate the service. But, when once he has been informed about the bad condition of the road enroute, he along with the conductor of the bus has approached the Controller with a request to cancel the trip. But, however, his request to cancel the trip was declined. He has, then picked up an unnecessary argument resulting in heated exchange of words. When once the Controller or any other official of the corporation who is fairly familiar with the road conditions instructed a driver and the conductor to carry on the operations of the service, as disciplined employees of the organisation, the driver and the conductor are required to carry on the operations. In the instant case, the fact remains that the writ petitioner did not heed to the orders passed by the Controller. His insistence for ascertaining the facts properly from the other colleague drivers who have operated the service on the previous days or ascertain the said fact from any other source, are certainly not called for. As a driver of the bus, he ought to have been alive to the fact that the corporation provides transportation services for the general public. The commuting passengers will be dependant upon the services operated by the corporation for their mobility and their transportational needs. In those set of circumstances, any unwanted interaction with the Inspector or Controller of the Depot with regard to running of the bus on the part of the driver and the conductor resulting in cancellation of the bus service is bound to be viewed with seriousness. But, at the same time, the principle that cannot be forgotten by the disciplinary authorities is this. They must award a reasonable proportionate punishment to the proven misconduct. Regulation 8 of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 provides a host of punishments commencing with censure ending up with dismissal. From this very regulation, one can decipher the nature of exercise that was required to be carried out by the disciplinary authorities viz., choosing the most appropriate of the punishments to be imposed. Recovering the loss caused to the corporation is one of the punishments listed out. Similarly, withholding of increments or reduction of pay by one or several stages is also one of the punishments as per Regulation 8. Therefore, greater care and caution was required to be exercised by the disciplinary authorities while choosing the appropriate punishment for every proven misconduct. Irrespective of its gravity the disciplinary authority should not jump to the conclusion to impose punishment of dismissal or removal invariably. Such a preordained approach on the part of the disciplinary authorities would itself reflect an unhealthy attitude or attempt to penalise the employees harshly. The proven quantum of misconduct must necessarily be borne in mind while making an assessment as to the nature of punishment that is liable to be imposed. Further, the punishment must also necessarily be imposed keeping in mind the nature of duties and responsibilities liable to be performed by the employee. In other words, while imposing the punishment one has to keep the status of the employee in view. Hence, the punishment must not only meet the proven misconduct, but also the status of the person who is likely to be penalised. While the industrial workmen are undoubtedly required to be disciplined, but at the same time imposition of harsh punishments or imposing excessively intolerable restraints, are also likely to be counter productive, if not produce the opposite of the desired result. While the contribution of the workmen will have a direct bearing upon the productivity of the organisation, at the same time reasonable care is required to be gone into the exercise of choosing the appropriate punishment that should meet the ends of justice. Viewed from the above perspective, imposition of punishment of removal from service appears to be a little too harsh in the given circumstances. Instead the punishment of reduction of pay or postponement of increments with cumulative effect would have produced enough of a deterrent effect on the offender. After all the prospects of loosing higher emoluments is likely to produce the necessary effect on the mind of the offenders. Therefore, viewed from this angle, the direction of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court to impose punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect appears to be reasonable exercise carried out by it. Similarly, the direction of the Labour Court for recovering a sum of Rs.2,000/- as penalty, towards recouping the loss sustained by the corporation due to the attitude exhibited by the petitioner also merits acceptance. By imposing punishment of recovery of loss sustained by the corporation, the interests of the corporation have been sought to be preserved. However, what is not sustainable is the direction of the Labour Court to appoint the writ petitioner afresh. Obviously, the Labour Court has not examined the scope and width of Regulation 8 of the Corporation Employees CCA Regulations. Ordering for a fresh appointment is not a listed punishment in Regulation 8. Therefore, while exercising the power available to Labour Court in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, no new punishment than what is contemplated by Regulation 8 could have been imposed. Therefore, more with a view to reconcile the award passed by the Labour Court, the direction of the Labour Court in this regard must be understood as one ordering for reinstatement of the writ petitioner back into service. Obviously, the Labour Court is aware that it cannot make appointments on behalf of the Corporation. Therefore, when it ordered that the writ petitioner herein be appointed afresh, what perhaps it really meant was that the writ petitioner should be reinstated without any backwages for the period of his absence from the service i.e., from the date of imposition of punishment of removal from service. If so understood, the award passed by the Labour Court becomes clear and compatible. The writ petitioner is to be reinstated back to service, duly modifying the order of punishment imposed against him to that of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and the writ petitioner is not entitled for payment of any backwages for the period of absence from the date of imposition of punishment of removal till the date of actual reengagement pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petitioner is also liable to make good the loss sustained by the corporation by remitting the sum of Rs.2,000/-, if not already done by him. After all the writ petitioner has rendered more than 10 years of service to the corporation by the time the unhappy incident has occurred on 11.7.1997. In normal circumstances, I would have set aside the award passed by the Labour Court and remitted it. But, that would have visited the writ petitioner graver hardship, as his services become liable to be disengaged by the corporation immediately, as the original punishment will spring into operation. It would be more harsh and hence with a view to give quietus to the dispute which is more than 12 years old, I have adopted the process indicated supra. The writ petition is therefore allowed to the extent indicated supra viz., modification of the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of ordering for reinstatement of the writ petitioner to duty without payment of backwages, in place of the direction of the Labour Court to appoint the writ petitioner afresh. The other punishments of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and payment of Rs.2,000/- to the corporation, remain unaltered. No costs. -------------- knk 25.03.2010