THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6598 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Conductor, in the APSRTC, in the year 1990, and his services were regularized in 1998. On 17.09.1997, he was conducting a bus from Gadwal to Gopaldinne. A check was caused at about 9.00 p.m., at stage 1/2, Jammichedu. A charge memo was issued on 24.09.1997, alleging that the petitioner has reissued 14 tickets of denomination of Rs.4/- and he has created an ugly scene during the course of check, resulting in tearing away of statistical report; snatching away of recovered tickets from the checking officials; and detention of the bus for 3½ hours, by instigating the passengers and villagers etc. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with that, the Depot Manager, Gadwal, the 2nd respondent, ordered domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding that all the six charges are proved. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner filed I.D.No.5 of 1999 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Through award, dated 17.08.2001, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Hence, this Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that fictitious and false allegations were made against him and that not a single incriminating ticket is recovered from the passengers. He submits that the other allegations are made only to cover up the lapses on the part of the checking officials. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The circumstances that led to the issuance of charge sheet are mentioned in detail. It is stated that when the petitioner was found to have reissued quite large number of tickets, he instigated the passengers and the same resulted in not only snatching away of the tickets from the custody of the checking officials, but also tearing of the S.R. The details of detention of the bus in the village, intervention of police etc., were furnished. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the unfortunate incident that resulted in detention of the bus occurred on account of the misbehaviour by one of the checking officials with a lady passenger. He contends that to cover up the fault on the part of the checking officials, the allegations were made in a fabricated version. Learned counsel submits that not a single ticket, which is said to have been reissued, was produced, much less any information was elicited through passengers or other witnesses. Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is guilty of not only reissuing the tickets, but also causing obstruction to the higher officials, who were checking the bus; and causing loss of reputation to the organization. The charges framed against the petitioner are six in number and they read as under: 1. “For having re-issued the tickets which were already issued and accounted in you SR.No.A4/3634490 in the earlier trip to 14 passengers who were traveling from Gadwal to Pudur ex-stages 1 to 4, in spite of collecting the requisite fare of Rs.4/- from each at their boarding point itself, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963; 2. For having torn the service SR into pieces, snatching it from the TTIs, when they were recording the try nos. of the ticket blocks of all denominations, with an intention to suppress the reissue of the tickets to 14 passengers by you which constitutes misconduct under REg.28(xxx) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963; 3. For having instigated the passengers not to give statement and to revolt against the TTIs at the time of check, which tentamounts to insubordination and constitute misconduct under Reg.28 (viii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963; 4. For having misbehaved with the checking officials at the time of check instigating the service driver and passengers against the checking officials and disobeyed their orders and operated the vehicle upto Gopaldinne in violation of the orders of the TTIs, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (viii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963; 5. For having instigated the passengers to snatch away the tickets from the pockets of the TTIs, which were re-issued by you to 14 passengers, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963; and 6. For having unauthorizedly detained the squad Jeep, service bus and the checking official from 19.30 hrs. to o.30 hrs. on 17-9-1997/18-9-97 at Gopaldinne village causing loss to the Corporation and inconvenience to the traveling public, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963;” Normally one does not come across the allegations of this nature, whenever a conductor is found to have failed to discharge his duties properly. It is not uncommon that the allegations of collection of fare and failure to issue tickets or reissue of used tickets are made. This Court would be a bit liberal in examining the allegations of that nature, having regard to the fact that the duty of a conduct is arduous in nature and that he has to deal with hundreds of passengers in different trips, spread over quite a long time. In the instant case, however, the situation is substantially different. The checking officials noticed that as many as 14 tickets were reissued by the petitioner. Had the matter ended at that, the consideration in examining the grievance of the petitioner would have been different. The charges are to the effect that to prevent the checking officials from taking any further steps, he had instigated the passengers and the driver of the bus and the same resulted in tearing away of the S.R. and snatching away of the tickets. If the allegation of the petitioner that the disturbance occurred on account of the misbehaviour of one of the checking officials with a lady passenger is true, there should have been a complaint by the said lady passenger with the police. It is to be noted that Sub-Inspector of the nearby police station has come to the spot. There should not have been any difficulty for the lady passenger in submitting her complaint. No such thing existed. The gravity of the situation can be assessed by the fact that the driver of the bus, who was very much on duty, refused to take the bus to the depot, when directed by the checking officials. The bus had to be driven by the jeep driver and the jeep, in turn, was driven by one of the checking officials. The whole episode is not at all in good taste. In the detailed domestic enquiry, the petitioner has not elicited anything inconsistent from the checking officials. Though one of the villagers/passengers was examined, his evidence is not at all trustworthy. The Labour Court has undertaken extensive discussion and arrived at the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over such findings of fact. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20.01.2011. GJ