THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 14546 of 2004 Dated: 26.10.2006 Between: Kumara Gurumurthy, S/o Ekambaram, aged 40 years, Occ: Ex-Conductor, R/o Vasanthapuram village, Naraharipet post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 14546 of 2004 O r d e r: The award dated 15.12.2003, passed by Labour Court, Ananthapur, in I.D. No. 118 of 2001, is called in question in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in respondent No.2- A.P.S.R.T.C.. On 28.05.2000, while he was conducting the bus service on the route Peddasettypalli to Chittoor, a check was exercised, and for certain cash and ticket irregularities, he was issued a charge memo. Thereupon, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 06.06.2000. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted into the charges. The Enquiry Officer having conducted the enquiry, held the charges proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry report, a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he shall not be removed from service was issued. Upon considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner thereto, vide order dated 08.09.2000, the 2nd respondent ordered his removal. Assailing the order of removal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 118 of 2001, which the Labour Court, vide the award impugned in the writ petition, dismissed the I.D. confirming the order of removal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-APSRTC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount involved is only Rs.22/-, and because of a quarrel with one passenger, who kept his luggage near passenger door and refused to remove them and purchase luggage tickets, the petitioner could not issue tickets to six passengers. He further submits that the petitioner has not misappropriated any amounts, much less the ticket amounts, and the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate. He, thus, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court and allow the writ petition. 5. The 2nd respondent-APSRTC filed counter. Reiterating the counter averments, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-APSRTC contended that the petitioner has unclean service record, and this is evident from the fact that his annual increments were deferred on three occasions and fines were imposed on two occasions. He submitted that the petitioner, having collected fare from six passengers, failed to issue tickets to them and the said fact was also admitted by him in his reply to the charge sheet, and therefore, his plea that he did not misappropriate any amount is incorrect. He submitted that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is not disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Given the misconduct of misappropriation, alleged against the petitioner, which stood proved, the petitioner has to be dismissed from service, but the disciplinary authority has imposed a lesser punishment of removal from service, which was confirmed by the Labour Court, and no interference is called for therewith. 6. The parameters and scope of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari are very limited. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai[1], the apex Court held as follows: Certiorari, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. 7. The petitioner, as can be seen from the award, did not allege any procedural irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry and the domestic enquiry was held valid by the Labour Court. In the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, on consideration of the evidence of the checking officials, statements of the passengers concerned and the entries in S.Rs, found that the petitioner, having collected fare from six passengers, failed to issue tickets to them, and thus pocketed the value of the said tickets, and accordingly held that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority, considering the nature of the proved charges, imposed punishment of removal from service. The Labour Court on re-appreciation of the entire material on record, held that the petitioner, having collected requisite fare from six passengers, failed to issue tickets to them and defrauded the revenue of the Corporation, so the punishment of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority on the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct, and accordingly upheld the said punishment, and no exception can be taken thereto, more so when the petitioner failed to show that there was procedural impropriety in the imposition of punishment. 8. Further, in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane2, the apex Court held that once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to the appellate tribunals and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. On the question of quantum of punishment, the apex Court held as follows: Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. 9. In the instant case, the charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved, and having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the proved charges, the respondents having lost confidence in the petitioner, removed him from service. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, upholding the punishment of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority. 10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 2610.2006 Nsr/Sj [1] AIR 2003 SC 3044=2003AIR SCW3872 2 (2005) 3 SCC 254