THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.1005 of 2007 Date: 23.09.2010 Between: M.C. Mouli .. Petitioner AND Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.1005 of 2007 ORDER: The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal assails the Nil Award dated 17.04.2006 passed therein. The petitioner, a conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) since 29.06.1992 was regularized in service as such on 06.07.1994. While he was conducting the bus service on the route Thorrur to Palakurthy on 22.09.2000, a check was made at stage-2 by the APSRTC’s Regional Enforcement Squad, Khammam. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on four charges: “1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘issue correct tickets to all the passengers boarded into the bus duly punching 4 punches on the tickets and failed to show the correct sale of tickets in the S.R at the appropriate stages, which is misconduct under Reg.28 (vi)(a)(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2 . For having failed to issue tickets tofour (4) passengers despite collecting requisite fare of Rs.3/- each total amounting to Rs.12/- at the boarding point itself, who boarded the bus at Palakurthy and found alighting with tickets bearing Nos.080/778752 to 755 of Rs.3/- deno., at Valmidi, ex-stages 1 to 2, which was issued to the said four (4) passengers on seeing the TTIs duly picking tickets from the tray and tried to punch on the said tickets which was prevented by the TTIs, which is misconduct under Reg.28 (vi)(a)(b) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having failed to account the sale of tickets of Rs.3/- deno., bearing Nos.080/7787752 to 755 (E-4) in the Service S.R against stage No.2, thus defrauded the legitimate revenue of the Corporation, which is misconduct under Reg.28 (vi)(a) & (b) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 4 . For having failed to co-operate with the TTIs to perform their duty smoothly and prevented them to perform their duties, with the result, much inconvenience was caused to the checking officials as well as travelling passengers, which is misconduct under Reg.28 (viii) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” Not being satisfied with his reply, the APSRTC instituted an enquiry into the matter. After following the due procedure, the APSRTC removed the petitioner from service under proceedings dated 30.07.2001 which were confirmed in appeal and thereafter, in review. He therefore invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by way of the subject I.D. Having found the domestic enquiry to be valid and binding under its order dated 29.11.2005, the Labour Court permitted the parties a further opportunity of adducing evidence. However, no oral evidence was reported, but the APSRTC marked Exs.M.1 to M.22. Upon consideration of the material on record, the Labour Court found that charge No.4 was not established. Insofar as charges 1, 2 & 3 are concerned, the Labour Court found against the petitioner, inasmuch the evidence on record clearly manifested that the petitioner, having collected the fare from four passengers at the boarding point, hurriedly tried to issue them tickets at the time of the check. However, three such tickets were not punched at all while the fourth bore light punching marks. This evidence, supported by the oral testimony of the TTIs, prompted the Labour Court to come to the finding that the petitioner collected the fare at the boarding point itself but did not issue tickets to the passengers till he saw the TTIs, clearly indicating his intention. Further, the petitioner had closed the S.R. for all other tickets except these four tickets up to stage-2. The Labour Court therefore found charges 1 to 3 to be duly established. So far as the doctrine of proportionality is concerned, the Labour Court upon a thorough analysis on the subject and being conscious of the fiduciary status of a bus conductor, held against the petitioner. Reliance was placed in this regard on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal and another[1] and Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. A.T. Mane[2]. The Labour Court therefore opined that the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner was not at all disproportionate, thereby resulting in the dismissal of the I.D. Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as charge-4 had not been established, the Labour Court ought to have taken a sympathetic view in the matter and applied the principles of proportionality. However, this plea does not find favour with this Court. The facts on hand establish beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was guilty of the serious charges 2 & 3. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Hoti Lal, a bus conductor is a person who deals with public money and acts in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the highest integrity and trustworthiness is a must and is unexceptionable. Once the petitioner failed to meet these standards, he cannot complain when punished for his established misconduct in this regard. The cogent and well-reasoned award of the Labour Court holding so does not invite interference by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 23.09.2010 Isn [1] 2003 LAB.I.C.-757 [2] 2005 SCC (L&S)-407