IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5926 of 2009 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Salur Depot, Vizianagaram. ..... Petitioner AND Bahubalendruni Rama Raju, & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Appaiah Sharma This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5926 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 08.05.2008 in I.D.No.104 of 2006 on the file of respondent No.2. Heard Sri C. Appaiah Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Respondent No.1, who was a conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, was found to have not accounted for issue of four tickets. The charge against him was that he issued tickets bearing Nos.575-570171 to 174 of Rs.6/- denominations to the passengers, who boarded the bus at stage No.1 bound to stage No.4, Kothavalasa but has not accounted for in the SR and he punched the said tickets at stage Nos.4 and 1 instead of 1 and 4. In the departmental enquiry, respondent No.1 was found guilty of misconduct and was accordingly removed from service. Respondent No.1 approached respondent No.2 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the said order. Respondent No.2, while concurring with the finding of guilt of respondent No.1 by the domestic tribunal, however, applied doctrine of proportionality and held that the penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. On that reasoning the said penalty was modified into one of deferment of increments with cumulative effect for a period of three years. Respondent No.1 was also denied back wages, but given continuity of service. Assailing this award, respondent No.1 filed this writ petition. The learned Standing counsel for the petitioners submitted that the award of respondent No.2 suffers from illegality. He submitted that having held that the finding of the domestic tribunal against respondent No.1 regarding misconduct was correct, respondent No.2 was not justified in interfering with the quantum of the punishment. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Standing counsel. Section 11(A) of the Act vests power in the Labour Courts/Tribunals to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal, if they are satisfied that such orders were not justified and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions as they think fit. Ordinarily, the punishment imposed by the domestic tribunals on the finding of proven misconduct, shall not be interfered with by the Labour Courts/Tribunals. But, by virtue of Section 11A, certain amount of discretion is vested in the Labour Courts/Tribunals to reduce the quantum of punishment wherever, for valid reasons, they are satisfied that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. When once such discretion is exercised, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not normally interfere with such exercise of discretion, unless the reasoning of the Labour Courts/Tribunals is either perverse or patently erroneous or otherwise unsustainable in law. (see Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Limited v. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale[1]). A perusal of the award of respondent No.2 shows that though not many reasons have been given, it can easily be culled out there from that the domestic tribunal was of the view that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. De hors the reasoning of respondent No.2, even on an independent examination of the facts, in my considered view, the misconduct of respondent No.1 in not accounting for issue of four tickets of Rs.6/- denomination may not be of so grave as to warrant removal from service. I may hasten to add that generally it is the propensity of the workman to commit misconduct, which is relevant rather than the amount involved in misappropriation. However, on the facts of the case, respondent No.2 has exercised its discretion by modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of deferment of annual increments for a period of three years with cumulative effect which is also a major penalty besides denying respondent No.1 of back wages. For the misdemeanor respondent No.1 is found to have indulged in, he suffered adequate punishment. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7740 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.03.2009 ES [1] (2009) 2 SCC 288