THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14352 of 1997 Dated 08-02-2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Armoor Depot, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND A.G.Mahesh and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14352 of 1997 O R D E R: Heard Smt B.G.Uma Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation. Though the writ petition is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, Sri B.Ravinder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent- workman, requests time. Since the writ petition is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, I am not inclined to accede to such a request and since no submissions are made, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition on merits. The first respondent-workman was issued a charge memo dated 22-08-1992, wherein the charges levelled are as under:- (i) For having reissued ticket Nos.320/969804 to 806, 814, 317/967887 to 889 and 899 of Rs.1.50 deno. at stage No.31 to eight individual passengers boarded his vehicle at Pandarivadi bound for Board ex-stages 31 to 32, while conducting vehicle No.AP9Z 2102 on 18-08-1992 on the route Armoor to Nanded, which constitutes misconduct vide Reg.No.28(vi)(a) and (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. (ii) For having reissued ticket Nos.508/640310 to 312, and 315 of Rs.2.25 deno. at stage No.30 to four individual passengers boarded his vehicle at Bhopsi bound for Board, ex-stages 30 to 32, while conducting vehicle No.AP9Z 2102 on 18-08-1992 on route Armoor to Nanded, which constitutes misconduct vide Reg.No.28(vi)(a) and (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. A departmental enquiry was held and, on the enquiry officer holding the first respondent-workman guilty of the charges, a show cause notice proposing imposition of the punishment of removal from service was issued on 06-01-1993 calling upon him to submit his explanation. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, by order dated 22- 01-1993, imposed the punishment of removal from service on the first respondent. It is relevant to note that the first respondent- workman admitted the charges in the departmental enquiry. Aggrieved by the order of punishment of removal from service, the first respondent-workman invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Before the Labour Court, while no evidence was adduced on behalf of the first respondent-workman, Exs.M.1 to M.21 were marked on behalf of the petitioner-corporation. The Labour Court noted that the first respondent-workman, both in his spot explanation and his subsequent explanation and statement before the enquiry officer, had, admitted the charges levelled against him and held that all the charges levelled against him were proved and unassailable. On the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court was of the view that the punishment imposed was disproportionate. The Labour Court relied on a decision of this Court, wherein though the bus conductor had allowed the passengers to travel without tickets on three different occasions, had not made entries and had allowed the bus to proceed, had held that the punishment of removal was unjust and harsh. In the present case, the Labour Court held that, taking into consideration all aspects, on the strength of the evidence available, and keeping in view the principles of proportionality in awarding the punishment, the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate and was liable to be interfered with. The impugned order of removal was set aside and the first respondent was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without 50% back wages. I n Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S.Hullikatti[1], the Supreme Court observed that it is the responsibility of bus conductor to collect correct fares from the passengers and deposit the same in the Corporation, that conductors act in fiduciary capacity, it would be gross misconduct if knowingly they did not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare and that, in such cases, interference with the punishment of dismissal from service was a case of misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court. In Regional Manager, Rajastan State Transport Corporation v. Ghanshyam Sharma[2], the Supreme Court held that the proved acts amounted either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and bus conductors, who by their actions or inactions cause financial loss to the Corporation, are not fit to be retained in service. In V.Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C[3], the Supreme Court held that Courts/Tribunals should not interfere unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. The charges held established against the first respondent are of having issued or re-issued tickets of Rs.1.50 denomination to eight individual passengers and to have re-issued tickets of Rs.2.25 denomination to four individual passengers. In substance, the charge held established is that the first respondent-workman had made use of the tickets issued earlier and had re-issued such tickets to the passengers, which can only be with a view to misappropriate the proceeds which rightfully belonged to the petitioner-corporation. In the judgments aforesaid, the Supreme Court has held that a workman who indulges in acts of misappropriation cannot be continued in service. Except to state that the principles of proportionality would apply, and that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges held established, no other reasons are assigned by the Labour Court as to why it had come to the conclusion that the order of removal from service was disproportionate. It is no doubt true that the Labour Court, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the Act’), has the power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer even in case it is satisfied that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are established. Since the nature and extent of punishment to be imposed on the delinquent employee for proved acts of misconduct is, ordinarily, in the employer’s realm, while the Labour Court, undoubtedly, has the power to interfere and modify the punishment imposed, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11- A of the Act, such exercise of power cannot be as a matter of course or on grounds of misplaced sympathy. The Labour Court, even in cases where it is of the view that the punishment ought to be interfered with, must assign reasons as to why it considers it necessary to do so. Except to state that the punishment is disproportionate, the Labour Court has not even discussed the nature of the charge held established and as to whether for such grave and serious charges of misconduct, which are admittedly proved, the punishment of removal from service necessitates interference. The impugned award of the Labour Court is quashed. Since this Court, in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not, ordinarily, substitute the punishment imposed by the Labour Court with another, it is but appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the Labour Court for its consideration afresh only on the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the delinquent employee for the charge of misconduct held established. The Labour Court shall give both the parties an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ 08-02-2008 usd [1] AIR 2001 SC 930 [2] 2002(1)LLJ 234 [3] AIR 2005 SC 3417