IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19800 of 1999 Between: V.Satyanarayana, S/o. Gopalam, Siddantam Village & P.O., Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.Depot, Bhimavaram Depot, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to the I.D.No. 352/94 dated 31-12-1996 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur and quash the same in so far in not granting the full back wages and imposing punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect, by way of issue of Writ of Certiorari and consequently direct the respondents to pay the arrears of full back wages and also the arrears of payment of increments which are deferred by the award other consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 19800 of 1999 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed against the award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, dated 31-12-1996 in I.D.No.352 of 1994 aggrieved to the extent of not awarding the back wages and also imposing of punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, he was promoted as Conductor and was attached to Bhimavaram bus depot. On 20-01-1991, while he was conducting the bus bearing No.AEZ/695 on the route from Bhimavaram to Kolidind, at stage No.5, a check was conducted by the checking officials. Having found certain cash and ticket irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by framing the following charges: 1. For having issued tickets for less than the actual distance travelled by a batch of four passengers who boarded the bus at Bhimavaram bus stand and bound for Tadinada Ex-stages 1 to 7 respectively despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.17/- from them at the boarding point itself i.e., issued Rs.1.50 ps. deno. tickets instead of Rs.4.25 ps. deno. Tickets while you were conducting the vehicle AEZ/695 on the route Bhimavaram – Kakinada on 20-01-1991 on 20-01- 1991 which amounts to misconduct under Reg.28 (XXV) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having issued ticket for less than the actual distance travelled by a lady passenger who boarded the bus at Bhimavaram bus stand and bound for Tandinada Ex- Stage 1 to 7 respectively, despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.4.25 ps. from her at the boarding point itself i.e., issued Rs.1.50 ps. deno. ticket while you were conducting the vehicle AEZ/695 on the route Bhimavaram Kalidindi on 20-01-1991, which amounts to misconduct under Reg.No.28(XXV) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. With reference to the charges framed against the petitioner, it was his defence in the enquiry proceedings that the colour of Rs.1.50 ps. ticket and Rs.4.25 ps. tickets were one and the same, and therefore, he has issued lesser denomination tickets by mistake. It is also contended by him that Rs.1.50 ps. ticket was over stamped with plus 0.25 ps. and Rs.4.25 ps. was also stamped with plus 0.25 ps. Therefore, it was his defence that those rubber stamps were not clear, and in view of the similarity in colour of the tickets of two different denominations, he has issued Rs.1.50 ps. tickets instead of Rs.4.25 ps. tickets. In the domestic enquiry, the said plea of the petitioner was disbelieved and it was held that he has issued lesser denomination tickets though he collected the correct fare from a batch of four passengers. In view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application under Section 2- A(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, by recording a finding that the explanation of the petitioner is somewhat acceptable, has set aside the punishment of removal by invoking powers under Section 11-A of the Act, and directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without back wages and also imposed the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, the petitioner was not the Conductor to conduct the bus on the route in question. But, as the regular Conductor was absent on that date, he was asked to conduct the bus on that route. As he was sleepless in the previous night and was performing duty in the early hours, under mistaken impression, the tickets of denomination of Rs.1.50 ps. were issued instead of Rs.4.25 ps. In the above circumstances, awarding of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, and denying the back wages is not warranted. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of D.U.V.N.V.Raju v. Depot Manager, APSRTC. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has issued tickets of Rs.1.50 ps. instead of Rs.4.25 ps. to a batch of four passengers, and to one lady passenger. Though it was the case of the petitioner that the said tickets were issued by mistake in view of the similarity of colour and improper stamping on them, but, however, that was disbelieved in the domestic enquiry. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any further evidence, it is not possible to arrive at a different finding than the finding recorded by the Tribunal. However, the labour Court, while recording a finding that the explanation of the petitioner is somewhat acceptable, has substituted the punishment of removal with stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, by invoking powers under Section 11-A of the Act. Having regard to the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, it is a clear case where due to the misconduct committed by the petitioner, there is a financial loss to the Corporation. The Tribunal, though did not disturb the findings of the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry, but, looking at the explanation offered by the petitioner, invoked the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and substituted the punishment of removal from service, to that of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Though, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of this Court referred above, in support of his argument for awarding of back wages, but, in the very same judgment, the learned single Judge of this Court has observed that awarding of back wages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and also the nature and gravity of the charges. In this case, in view of the fact that the misconduct of the petitioner has resulted in financial loss to the Corporation, this Court is of the view that the respondent- Corporation cannot be burdened with the liability of paying back wages to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the judgement relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not render any assistance to him for claiming back wages. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the Award passed by the Tribunal, awarding the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and denying the back-wages, in substitution of the punishment of removal from service. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 19-08-2008 KLP