THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.430 2003 ORDER: Unsuccessful before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.223 of 2000 is the petitioner before this Court in Certiorari seeking invalidation of an order of removal dated 09.06.1989 passed by the second respondent Corporation. The petitioner was a regular conductor employed in the service of the Corporation since April, 1980. On 01.01.1989 while he was conducting an Express City Service Bus, from Jeedimetla to Charminar, a check was conducted near Stage No.4 and five species of irregularities were found indulged by the petitioner including issuing of lower denomination ticket of Rs.0.75 ps. after collecting a fare of Rs.1.75 ps from a passenger, who was travelling from Erragadda to Charminar; collecting the requisite fare of Rs.1.50 ps from a passenger but failing to issue a ticket from Ameerpet to Charminar. The petitioner, who was placed under suspension on 05.01.1989, was served a charge sheet. After a due process of enquiry, a second show cause notice proposing removal from service was issued to the petitioner on 26.05.1989, for which he offered no explanation. Eventually, the Corporation passed an order of removal on 09.06.1989 through the Depot Manager. He preferred an unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Manager, Secunderabad, which was rejected on 16.11.1989. He campaigned further by way of a review, which was rejected by the Regional Manager, Bhagyanagar. He thereupon moved the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court by the award dated 19.10.2001 impugned herein rejected his application. The Labour Court concurred with the disciplinary, appellate and review authorities of the second respondent Corporation in holding that there was evidence of the passengers recorded at the spot enquiry and of the checking officials, which established that the petitioner was guilty of the charges alleged. The Labour Court also recorded in its award that the past conduct of the petitioner revealed recidivist indulgence in ticketing irregularities. Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that taking into account the past misconduct of the petitioner regarding involvement in ticketing irregularities was irrational, as the petitioner was not put on notice of any past misconduct nor the departmental authority relied on the past misconduct for the purpose of imposing on him punishment of removal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in respect of the above contention. Despite the irregularity in the Labour Court’s recording of the petitioner’s past misconduct as a factor in confirming the employers determination of the appropriate penalty of removal. However, the eventual order of Labour Court is not liable to be disturbed. The disciplinary, appellate and review authorities of the Corporation as well as the Labour Court rightly concluded that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriation in collecting funds from passengers and issuing a lower denomination ticket. This clear and demonstrated constitutes an act of misappropriation of the Corporation funds. There cannot be a more serious misconduct. Such established misconduct per se deserves the condign punishment of removal from service and the employer was satisfied that the punishment of removal was proportionate to the charge of misappropriation established in the domestic enquiry. The gloss of past misconduct considered by the Labour Court does not derogate from the vitality of the management’s identification of the appropriate punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner. On the aforesaid analysis, no case for certiorari is made out. There are no merits in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Date: 27.01.2011 va