THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3094 of 2005 Dated: 07.04.2010 Between: M. Babu Rao. .. Petitioner. And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam, And others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 06.05.2004, passed in I.D.No.86 of 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner is the workman. Respondents 1 to 4 are the management. It appears, while the petitioner, who was working as Conductor in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), was conducting a bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 1442, on Route No.541, a check was exercised on 07.01.2001 by the checking officials at Stage No.7 i.e., Gopalapatnam outskirts near Durgalamma Temple at 0945 hours and certain cash and tickets irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner were found. Thereupon, he was issued with a charge memo on 15.01.2001. Basing on the charge memo, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges:- “1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue & Start’ while you were conducting vehicle No. AP 10 Z 1442 on route No.541 on 07.01.2001, which constitutes ‘misconduct’ under Reg.No.28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 6 passengers who boarded the bus at Birla and were found alighting without tickets at Gopalapatnam (Ex-stages 5 to 7), even though you have collected an amount of Rs.20.00 towards the requisite fare of Rs.3.00 each (total comes to Rs.18.00) and failed to issue the remaining amount of Rs.2.00 at the boarding point itself, while you were conducting vehicle No.AP 10 Z 1442 on route No.541, on 7.1.2001, which constitutes ‘misconduct’ under Reg.28 (vi-a) & (ix-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having closed the S.R of all denominations upto stage No.7 without completing the ticket issues, while you were conducting vehicle No. AP 10 Z 1442 on route No.541 on 7.1.2001, which constitutes ‘misconduct’ under Reg. 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg., 1963.” After explanation of the petitioner was called for and a detailed enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against him, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 27.03.2001 removing the petitioner from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the said punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute in I.D.No.86 of 2002 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. It was the case of the workman that, at the time of check, the bus was overloaded with 85 passengers and when he was convincing a drunken passenger, who was creating nuisance in the bus, a check was exercised by the checking officials and found that tickets were not issued to a batch of six passengers, who boarded the bus at stage No.5. The management filed a detailed counter affidavit before the Labour Court denying the allegations made by the workman and it was asserted that the past conduct of the workman was not good and, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. Before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. However, on behalf of the management, documents Exs.M1 to M17 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court held that there is no flaw in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the management was justified in removing the workman from service for the misconduct committed by him and, accordingly, passed the impugned award, dismissing the claim petition filed by the workman. Aggrieved thereby, the workman filed this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. Though there are certain past misconducts attributed against the petitioner, which cannot be denied, the petitioner was never removed from service earlier, but some punishment of censure and stoppage of increments were imposed against him, which are very common in the service of a conductor. Admittedly, the bus was overloaded with 85 passengers and some drunken passengers in the bus created nuisance, and, therefore, the petitioner could not issue the tickets properly. But, these facts were not believed by the Labour Court and it confirmed the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner, holding that there is no flaw in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the workman. This is not a case of re-issue of tickets or a case where the petitioner was removed from service on earlier occasions also for the same misconduct committed by him in the present case, but this is purely a case of the petitioner not issuing tickets to a batch of six passengers, who boarded the bus at stage No.5 and were about to alight at stage No.7, and before the bus reached stage No.7, a check was exercised by the checking officials. Thus, I am of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved and the Labour Court, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act, could have reduced the punishment of removal from service. Therefore, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned award. For all the above reasons, the impugned award, dated 06.05.2004, is set aside, and the respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without backwages and other attendant benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the period during which the petitioner was out of service shall be treated as continuous service only for the purpose of retiral benefits. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 07.04.2010 v v