IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 511 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 10454 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Division Bench of this Court made the following judgment: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. * * * WRIT APPEAL No. 511 OF 2000 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Meena Kumari ) This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in WP.No.10454 of 2000, dated 11-7-2000. 2. The appellant herein, who is the petitioner in WP.No.10454 of 2000 has questioned the orders passed in ID.No.111 of 1998 dated 29-2-2000 passed by the first respondent, which was published in GO.Rt.No.920, dated 01-5-2000, wherein the Labour Court as confirmed the removal of the appellant herein. The appellant was a conductor in the respondent-corporation. The charge against the appellant is that he collected an amount of Rs.5-50 paise from a passenger, who boarded at Vissannapet and alighted at Rudravaram Ex-Stages 18 to 13 and those tickets were earlier issued and accounted for in the SR and he collected Rs.3-50 paise from a passenger, who boarded at stage no.16 and alighted at stage no.13 and these tickets were also earlier issued and accounted in the S.R. Further the appellant was found in possession of used tickets and unconnected tickets while he was conducting the bus on route Vissannapet-Vijayawada on 29-3-1997. The appellant submitted his explanation denying the charges. The authorities of the respondent- corporation without considering the same conducted an enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer examined the passengers and they deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant herein has collected the amount and issued tickets and the Enquiry Officer found that charge no.1 is based on the actual situation by the checking staff with regard to collection of amount of Rs.5-50 paise and Rs.3-50 paise. Having satisfied with the Enquiry Officer, the Management has removed the appellant, which was questioned in the ID.No.111 of 1998 and the Labour Court has confirmed his removal. Questioning the same, WP.NO.10454 of 2000 was filed and after going through the records viz., Enquiry Officer’s report etc., the learned single Judge held that the punishment proposed against the appellant is proportionate to the charges framed against him. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed. 3. Sri G. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised several contentions and had taken this court through the order impugned in this appeal and contended that the learned single Judge erred in relying upon the spot statements of the two passengers in question during the time of check to the effect that they paid fare charges to the appellant and the appellant issued the tickets when the very same passengers have retracted from their spot statements before the Enquiry Officer and when the Labour Court has specifically held that if the spot statements which were resiled cannot be relied upon. Further the termination of the appellant is violative of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, since Industrial dispute is pending before the additional Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, with regard to the job security to the conductors as per reference in GO.Rt.No.1605 dated 03-8-1991 and as such the termination order passed against the appellant is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel further contended at length that the learned single Judge erred in holding that the record discloses that charges 1 and 2 are based on the factual situation observed by the checking staff to the effect that the appellant collected Rs.5-50 paise and Rs.3-50 paise from two passengers by issuing two used tickets. Further the learned single Judge ought to have held that if the retracted spot statements are excluded from consideration and when there is no check of cash or finding that the appellant is in possession of excess cash amount, there is no evidence to prove the charges 1 and 2. The learned counsel also vehemently contended that the learned single Judge erred in not accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer based on evidence that the practice of the majority of conductors is to retain the tickets issued to the passengers, which contain an endorsement of the charge due to the passengers and they must either throw away such tickets after giving the charge due to passengers at the time of alighting the vehicle and during busy time it may not be possible for the conductors to tear of and throw the tickets away. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Govt.Pleader for Labour. 5. We have gone through the order impugned and the material placed on record. A reading of the award discloses that the two passengers in question gave a statement during the time of check to the effect that they paid the fare to the conductor and that the conductor has issued tickets, which they have shown to the TTs. Before the Enquiry Officer, the two passengers stated that they have not paid any cash to the conductor and that the conductor has not issued tickets to them. The record discloses that charge nos.1 and 2 are based on the factual situation observed by the checking staff that the appellant collected an amount of Rs.5-50 paise and issued a used ticket, which was entered in SR. This forms basis for charge no.1. Like wise, charge no.2 deals with the allegation of collection of Rs.3-50 paise from a passenger and issued used ticket which was already accounted for in the SR. This is a matter which is proved by documentary evidence, and therefore, the Enquiry Officer was justified in rejecting the evidence of two passengers examined on behalf of the appellant duringt the enquiry, especially when the evidence of the two passengers was not trustworthy and insufficient to support the contention of the appellant that he is in the habit of keeping used tickets in cash bag. Therefore, the learned single Judge held that there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal that the charges are proved before the Enquiry Officer. Further the Enquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal have come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the charges. It is also the case of the management before the Tribunal that the appellant was removed once and he was censured six times for cash irregularities. After verifying the cash bag the checking staff found used tickets, which formed basis of the charge. 6. In view of the categorical finding of the charges both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge, which is based on the evidence available on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 09-7-2008 I s L ........REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER. To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { }