HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.2091 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award dated 25.7.2000 made in I.D.No.121 of 1999 by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, whereunder the application filed under section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking to set aside the order of removal passed by the 2nd respondent herein and to direct him to reinstate the petitioner into service with full backwages, continuity of service and with all other attendant benefits, was allowed partly directing the 2nd respondent- Depot Manager to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without backwages and other attendant benefits and further to impose stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner-workman is aggrieved insofar as denial of other benefits such as backwages and attendant benefits and imposition of punishment of stoppage five increments with cumulative effect. It appears that the petitioner-workman was appointed as conductor into service of APSRTC in the year 1986. While that being so, while he was conducting bus on 15.11.1987 on the route Medchal and Ranigunj at stage No.5/4, a check was exercised and the checking officials found certain cash and ticket irregularities. On the basis of the report of the checking officials, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges: 1. Failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ 2. Failed to collect fare and issue tickets to (4) passengers who are found traveling from stage No.14 to 1 and 3. Closed all the denominations in the SR upto stage No.5 Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, a detailed enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and after completing the formalities, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad seeking to set aside the removal order and seeking other benefits viz., reinstatement, backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Before the Industrial Tribunal, it was the case of the petitioner- workman that the enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely, there was no misconduct on his part and further there was no evidence to prove the charges leveled against him and that even assuming that the charges are proved, the same were very trivial in nature and they do not warrant punishment of removal from service. The respondent-Depot Manager filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and supported the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner himself examined, as P.W.1, but no documents were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the respondent-management, M.W.1 was examined and documents Exs.M1 to M9 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal passed the award directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without backwages and further directing the management to impose punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, which will be commensurate with the misconduct committed by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Industrial Tribunal recorded the finding, which reads as follows: “In view of the above evidence and Exs.M1 to M9 and also in view of the admission of the petitioner that 4 ticket less passengers were there in bus. The contention of the petitioner that the passengers deceived him, as a result of which, he could not cut 4 tickets cannot be accepted. It is his duty to check the tickets, how many tickets were issued and how many persons were there. If he found more than required passengers, he has to count and verify them in detail. As per the evidence of WW1 the staff members are traveling in the Bus. Six bus staff members also there it is not stated in the record that they are performing journey on duty, duty in official as such it is the duty of the conductor to collect fare from the six staff in addition to 4 passengers. He failed to collect bus fare from the staff members who are traveling unauthorisedly in the bus and also ought to have collected from four passengers. It is the duty of Conductor to collect fare from the 4 passengers, who are not given tickets to them. It is the duty of the conductor when he noticed one lady not purchasing the ticket he should verify from backside gents. Having noticed how can he forget collecting the fare from the passengers is not explained by him properly. The explanation offered by the petitioner that the passengers admitted before the TTI that they are at fault cannot be accepted. Even assuming that these passengers admitted their guilt and paid penalty. On the point of duty of the petitioner it is must for him to check the passengers with regard to the number of tickets issued and number of passengers there in the bus. As per the evidence of M.W.1, there are only 56 passengers as per the SR., and as per P.W.1, the passengers are 50. Almost double the number of passengers were paying the tickets traveling on the tickets and the number of passengers who are traveling free is almost equal. So, when 24 passengers are there without tickets the contention that it can be easily detected how many passengers were not purchased the tickets has no substance, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to see that all the passengers purchased the tickets. The fact that the passengers did not purchase the tickets upto stage No.5 from 14th stage. It clearly and clinchingly shows that the intention of the conductor and under these circumstances, it can be presumed that the conductor/petitioner with an intention to gain himself did not collect the fare and issued tickets to those 4 passengers and also 6 staff members. It is also obligatory on the part of the conductor to note down in the S.R. how many pass holders are there in the bus. So it is proved that as per the evidence of P.W.1 and M.W.1 and the other material available on record that the petitioner passed about 10 stages without following the rule “Issue and Start” as such issue No.1 is proved. Issue No.2: The intention of the petitioner is clear and consistent while on perusal of the evidence and other material available and the fact that the petitioner closed the S.R., without waiting for boarding passengers. That clearly shows that he closed the SR at 5th stage with an intention to get money that will be paid by the passengers, who will board the bus at the stages No.5 towards the tickets and the petitioner is with an intention to divert some amount towards his personal gain he closed the SR at 5th stage without waiting for the passengers. On the other hand, in the evidence of M.W.1 it is deposed that the petitioner is having bad record and previously, he was punished three times within 2 years that also suggests that the petitioner is having bad record as such the disciplinary authority established charge Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioner.” It is contended that having recorded such finding, the Tribunal ought to have awarded full backwages and other attendant benefits and further the Tribunal erred in directing the management to impose punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, which is arbitrary and illegal. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-management strenuously contended that the charges are very grave in nature and in spite of that, the Industrial Tribunal took a lenient view of the matter and directed reinstatement without backwages and without any attendant benefits and further directed stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, which is just and proper and no grounds are made out calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and the other material made available on record. From the findings recorded above, it is clear that the charges are proved. But having ordered for reinstatement while denying the back wages and other attendant benefits, the Tribunal ought not to have imposed punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. This in my considered view is an error committed by the tribunal while exercising its discretion conferred under section 11 A of the I.D. Act. The Tribunal should have simply passed an order of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages and attendant benefits and it should not have imposed further punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed error in passing such an award and therefore, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the following effect: (1) The respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman into service with continuity of service, but without backwages and without any attendant benefits. (2) Further punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect shall stand deleted. (3) However, the petitioner is entitled for notional increments. It is made clear that his pay shall be paid by fixing at appropriate stage from 1st March, 2011. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated: 11.2.2011 Nn. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.2091 OF 2003 11.2.2011