HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 23074 OF 2002 . DATED -------September, 2011 BETWEEN A.K. Ramdas …Petitioner And APSRTC, rep. by its Depot Manager, S.Kota Depot, Vizianagaram and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 23074 of 2002 ORDER: The unsuccessful petitioner/workman in I.D.No. 64 of 1999 assails the Nil Award dated 16.02.2001 passed by the second respondent-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam therein. The petitioner/workman was appointed as a conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 09.12.1992. While so, he was charge sheeted on 04.01.1997 on the charge that he had cheated the Duty Controller and taken away the double duty amount totalling to Rs.2070/- for the period from April, 1996 to July, 1996. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 06.02.1997, after due enquiry by the management of the first respondent-Corporation, he was removed him from service on 16.07.1997. His appeal and thereafter review ended in dismissal by orders dated 03.10.1997 and 7.11.1997 respectively. Thereupon, he invoked Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No. 64 of 1999. By Award dated 16.02.2001, the second respondent-Labour Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner from service is justified and hence no interference with the decision of the disciplinary authority is warranted. Hence this Writ Petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court did not exercise its power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in the proper perspective. He submitted that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is perverse and opposed to the material placed on record. As regards the punishment of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority, which seems to be extreme in its nature and disproportionate to the charge leveled against the petitioner/workman, the Labour Court ought to have interfered and exercised its power judiciously, setting aside the same. He pointed out that the claim made by the petitioner would be subject to the checking of disbursing officials and if his claim was not tallied with the office records, they would have rejected the same. He asserted that the petitioner neither manipulated any records for claiming the double duty amount nor was there any evidence to show that he colluded with the Duty Controller to cheat the first respondent-Corporation, and as such, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is extreme and entirely disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Corporation, reiterating the counter averments, submits that the petitioner/workman suffered adverse remarks before the disciplinary authority. The Labour Court while entertaining the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner exercised its discretion judiciously and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He sought to place reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs. SURESH CHAND SHARMA {(2010)6 SCC 555}, and, UPSRTC VS. HOTI LAL {(2003) 3 SCC 605}. The petitioner/workman did not dispute the validity of the enquiry. As such, the Labour court examined the evidence adduced on the record and found no reason to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and gone through the material placed on record, I find some force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The facts on record disclose that the petitioner had claimed an amount totalling to Rs.2070/- for performing double duty. The petitioner has in the first instance itself pleaded before the authorities that he lost his dairy to know the dates on which he has performed double duty and claimed the same to some extent of his knowledge. It may be noticed that any such claim made by the workman like the petitioner, in normal course, would be subjected to checking by the concerned officials and then only the same would be forwarded to the concerned officials for encashment. In the case on hand, the petitioner himself did not encash his alleged bill directly. Initially he had submitted his alleged bill to the concerned Duty Controller, when that be so, it was for him to look into the records and certify and then forward the same to the concerned disbursing officials for encashment. But for the reasons best known to the Duty Controller, he had forwarded/permitted for encashment of the alleged bill of the petitioner. The established facts on record disclose that the petitioner has neither manipulated the records for the purpose of claiming the alleged bill nor was there any evidence on record to show that he colluded with the Duty Controller for the purpose of claiming the bill thereby cheating the Corporation. It is not known as to how the Tribunal recorded the finding that the petitioner/workman has colluded with the Duty Controller. The said finding appears to have been recorded based on surmises and conjectures. The manner in which the Labour Court adjudicated the issue raised in the Industrial Dispute leaves much to be desired. When the dispute before the Labour Court was with regard to the alleged termination of the petitioner/workman from service and the consequences that follow thereupon, the Labour Court would have examined and decided the matter in the proper prospective. It may be noticed that there was no adverse finding against the petitioner that he had not performed any double duty to claim the alleged bill. Needless to observe, when the alleged claim made by the petitioner/workman was all subject to the checking of concerned Duty Controller and disbursing officials, if the same was not tallied with the office records, the Corporation authorities would have rejected the same. But that was not done so. As such, the petitioner cannot be made a scape goat for the absence of checking of the alleged bill claim, if any, either by the Duty Controller or the disbursing officials of the respondent Corporation. Even if any action was taken against the concerned Duty Controller for not verifying the alleged bills properly, it would not come in the way of the petitioner in any manner. In that view of the manner, I am of the considered opinion that the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner was grossly disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. A reference may be made in this regard to a Full Bench of this court in G.R. Reddy Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godavarikhani and Anr. 1998(1)ALD616 wherein it was held that the golden thread which is noticed throughout, is that this Court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot lightly interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, since the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the decision of the authority holding domestic enquiry against a public servant. It is not open to the High Court to re-appraise the evidence and to arrive at an independent conclusion on the evidence adduced in the case. However, the gray area where the High Court can interfere is only where during the course of departmental enquiry proceedings, principles of natural justice were violated causing prejudice to the delinquent officer. In such circumstances, The High Court may interfere with the punishment when the same is shockingly disproportionate to proved guilt or on misconduct no reasonable prudent man would award such a punishment which is so arbitrary and unreasonable attracting application of Article 14 and in that event, the High Court may well be justified in treating such cases as amounting to discrimination calling for redressal under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons mentioned hereby, the judgments relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Corporation cited supra are not applicable to the facts of this Court. Hence they are eschewed from consideration. In view of the foregoing discussion and settled legal position, this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed in part. It may be noticed that the workman did not plead that he was gainfully employed during the period he was out of service either in the affidavit filed before the Tribunal or atleast in the affidavit filed in support of the subject writ petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to make any order as to back wages. Further, the petitioner having been out of service, would not be entitled to continuity of service. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service without back wages and without continuity of service. The Writ Petition is allowed and the Award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated --------September, 2011. Msnro