IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 36990 of 1998 Between: A.K. Murthy S/o late A. Rama Chandra Rao R/o H.No. 4/428A, Guntakal, Anantapur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal cum Additional Labour Court, Anantapur. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Krishnadevaraya Region, Cuddapah, Cuddapah Dist. 3 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC., Anantapur Division, Anantapur. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Guntakal Depot, Anantapur Dist. .....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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.D.No.274/90 dt.9-3-93 in the ﬁle of the Additional Industrial Tribunal cum Additional Labour Court, Anantapur set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as a conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), questioned the award, dated 9.03.1993, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur in I.D.No.274 of 1990. By the aforesaid award, the order of removal passed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, which was also conﬁrmed by the appellate and review authorities, was confirmed. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-corporation in the year 1980. On 18.01.1988, when the petitioner was conducting the bus bearing No. AAZ 8702, on the route from Ananthapur to Guntakal, a check was exercised at Kuderu i.e. Stage No.15. At the time of check, the checking oﬃcials found eleven passengers in the bus, and out of them, eight passengers were found without tickets and only three were possessing tickets. Immediately, statements of the passengers were recorded, wherein they have passengers categorically and speciﬁcally stated that they have paid the fares but the conductor did not issue tickets. With reference to the irregularities noticed in issuing tickets, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by framing seven charges. The charges include the charge to the eﬀect that the petitioner-conductor failed to cooperate with the checking oﬃcials and behaved disorderly which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xviii) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under. 1. For having failed to observe the rule issue and start. 2. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.2.25 ps., from ﬁve individual passengers at the boarding point itself but failed to issue tickets, who boarded the bus at Ananthapur and found alighting at Kuderu without tickets ex. stages 19 to 15 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.6/- from two individual passengers (of Rs.12/-) at the boarding point itself, and failed to issue tickets, who boarded the bus at Ananthapur bound for Uravakonda and found traveling without tickets ex. Stages 19 to 8, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.2.75 ps., from one passenger traveling fro Anantapur to Muddalapuram ex. Stages 19 to 14, and failed to issue ticket, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(iv) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 5. For having failed to close the S.R., of all denominations against stage Nos.16 and 15 even though the vehicle reached stage No.15, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 6. For having failed to give spot statement, failed to acknowledge charge memo No.7/46801, and to acknowledge MTO/R No.32/49500 dt.18.01.1988 which were prepared and attempted to be served on you by the TTIs which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 7. For having failed to con-operate with the checking oﬃcials while checking your bus on 18.01.1988 on route Anantapur to Guntakal at stage No.15, and behaved disorderly which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(xviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. With reference to the above charges, domestic enquiry was conducted and as the enquiry reveal that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved, the petitioner was removed from service, apart from ordering for forfeiture of security his deposit. As against the same, the petitioner availed the remedies of appeal and revision, which were ended in dismissal. Thereafter, he ﬁled an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, questioning the removal order. The Industrial Tribunal held that there are no extraneous reasons and circumstances for modiﬁcation of the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority, as conﬁrmed by the appellate and review authorities, and accordingly, confirmed the removal order. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has shown reasonable cause for not collecting fares from the passengers and for not issuing tickets. It is stated that as the petitioner lost his wife about one year back to the incident, he was in disturbed mind and not with free mind. Though the said contention was raised earlier, the authorities below rejected it and recorded a ﬁnding that the said version is a cooked-up version only to escape from the charges. Apart from recording the statements of passengers immediately after the check, even in the domestic enquiry, one Mr. B. Jesupadam-Ticket Traveling Inspector and Mr. Jayaram- Service driver were examined on behalf of the management. Though they were cross-examined, nothing adverse was elicited from them. On the other hand, to substantiate his version, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that he was in a disturbed state of mind and therefore, he did not collect fares from the passengers and did not issue tickets to them. The ﬁndings recorded by the disciplinary authority found conﬁrmed by both the Appellate and Review authorities and the same were also accepted by the Tribunal, and as such, it is not open for the petitioner to raise the said ground and seek to set aside the ﬁndings of the Tribunal, confirming his removal order. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of S. Pulla Reddy v. Deport Manager, APSRTC Cuddapah District and another[1] to the eﬀect that in the absence of checking the cash bag, there is no conclusive proof for the charge leveled against the petitioner that he collected fares from the passengers but did not issue tickets to them. Merely because the cash bag was not inspected by itself is no ground to disbelieve the version of the witnesses, who were examined in the domestic enquiry and who have deposed in support of the charges. Even when the bus was inspected, it appears the passengers have stated that they have paid fares to the conductor, but they were not issued tickets. In that view of the matter, merely on the ground that the cash bag was not inspected, the other concurrent findings cannot be brushed aside. It is further contended that the order of forfeiture of security deposit and removal from service would amount to double punishment. The said submission deserves to be rejected for the reason that forfeiture of security deposit cannot be considered as punishment, as per the APSRTC Conduct Regulations. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner would not render any assistance to him. In the domestic enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner were held proved and the said finding was confirmed by both the appellate and review authorities. While upholding the above said ﬁndings the Tribunal has also recorded that the past conduct of the petitioner is also not good. In that view of the matter, I do not see any illegality committed by the Tribunal in conﬁrming the order of removal, made against the petitioner, warranting interference of this Court in this writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 11th August, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal cum Additional Labour Court, Anantapur. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Krishnadevaraya Region, Cuddapah, Cuddapah Dist. 3 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC., Anantapur Division, Anantapur. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Guntakal Depot, Anantapur Dist. 5 2 CCs to G.P. for Labour, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.(OUT) 6 2 CD copies. [1] 1997 (2) ALD 558