HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.1530 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award dated 9.3.1999 made in I.D.No.58 of 1997, whereunder the labour Court partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner-workman under section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages and attendant benefits and further imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. It appears that the petitioner while working as conductor and conducting a bus bearing No.AP 9Z 2189 on 30.8.1994 on route No.8- C, the checking officials exercised check at stage No.10 and found certain cash and ticket irregularities, for which a charge memo was issued and thereafter, a charge sheet dated 14.9.1994 was issued enumerating the following charges: 1. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.3,25 ps., each from a batch of two passengers who boarded your bus at Charminar (Stage No.1) and alighting at Secunderabad Station (Ganesh Temple) (Stage No.10) and issued tickets having light punch mark on the tip of ticket and avoided to account in S.R.No.AO/6043847 dated 30.8.1994 right from stage No.1 to 10 and closed the digit of Rs.3.25 ps., as 594 while conducting bus No.AP 9Z 2189 on route No.8C on 30.8.1994, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having not operated with the checking officials and not allowing them to check the bus passengers, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having altered the closing No.597 to 594 during subsequent stages upto Secunderabad station though Rs.3.25 ps., denomination tickets closed against stages 3 to 7 during 10.10 hours Charminar leaving trip, as 597 which clearly indicates your intention to re-issue the tickets, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 4. For having fraudulent intention for re-issue of tickets as you have ambiguously punched the tickets and altered of particular denomination closing Nos. in the S.R.No.AO/6043847, dated 30.8.1994 while conducting bus No.AP 9Z 2189, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 5. For having altered Rs.3.50 denomination figure 466 as 460 at 6.50 hours trip from Secunderabad to Patancheru from Stage No.13 to 11, 479 as 469 at 10.10 hours trip from Secunderabad to Patancheru from Stage No.3 to 17 and 489 as 480 at 11.45 hours trip from Patancheru to Secunderabad from stage No.16 to 6 while conducting service 54/1 on route No.226 E on 1.6.1994 vide SR No.AO/5709694, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 6. For having altered Rs.4.50 denomination figure 726 as 720 at 10.10 hours trip from Secunderabad to Patancheru from stage NO.3 to 17 and 733 as 723 at 11.45 hours trip from Patancheru to Secunderabad from stage No.16 to 4, while conducting service 54/1 on route No.226 E on 17.6.1994 vide S.R.No.AO/5266186, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(ix) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 7. For having altered Rs.4.50 denomination figure 372 as 370 at 11.45 hours trip from Patancheru to Secunderabad from stage No.14 to 4 and 137 as 130 at 10.10 hours trip from Secunderabad to Patancheru from stage No.3 to 18 of Rs.4.50 denomination, while conducting service 54/1 on route No.226 E on 20.7.1994 vide S.R.No.AO/5937483, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 8. For having altered Rs.4.50 denomination figure 283 as 273 at 8.40 hours trip from Patancheru to Secunderabad from Stage No.16 to 6 (except at Stage No.12) 283 as 280 at 10.10 hours trip from Secunderabad to Patancheru from stage No.5 to 17 and 287 as 280 at 11.55 hours trip from Patancheru to Secunderabad, from Stage No.16 to 14, while conducting service 54/1 on route No.226 E on 30.7.1994 vide S.R.No.AO/5938691, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 9. For having altered Rs.4.50 denomination figure 405 as 395 at 10.10 hours from Secunderabad to Patancheru from Stage No.3 and 407 as 397 in the same trip stage 5 to 17 while conducting service 54/1 on 9.8.1994 vide S.R.No.AO/5939513 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the enquiry Officer held that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and after completing the formalities, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal and review. Since both of them were dismissed, he had no other option except to approach the labour Court and accordingly, he filed an application before the labour Court and the same is numbered as I.D.No.58 of 1997. Before the Labout Court, it was the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely, there was no evidence to hold that the petitioner is guilty of those charges and further, the charges were trivial in nature and even assuming that there is some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct. The respondents filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and supported the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. It was also stated that opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case in the enquiry and the charges were proved and therefore, there was no option except to pass the order of removal. It is further stated that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have not committed any error and therefore, no interference is called for by the labour Court. Before the labor Court on behalf of the petitioner, none was examined and no documents were marked. On behalf of the respondent-management, though none was examined, documents Exs.M1 to M21 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the labour Court recorded a finding, which reads as under: “These charges, as already stated above, have been framed on the basis of the previous S.Rs which were submitted and accepted long back and they have been taken out from their custody. If there were alterations, in the S.R., they would have been noticed and action would have followed. Therefore, the alterations in the S.Rs which were accepted by the officials without raising any question or remark and which have been in their custody for all these days cannot be attributed to the petitioner at a belated stage. That apart, the officials, who have received and accepted those S.Rs are not examined to prove that the alleged alterations were there in those S.Rs when they were submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, I hold that charges 5 to 9 are not proved against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the extreme penalty of removal of the petitioner from service is too harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Learned Law Officer has argued that the order of removal is just and proportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. Punishment of removal from service is definitely disproportionate to the misconduct of ambiguous punching and alteration of figures in the S.R. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that ends of justice would meet if two increments are withheld without cumulative effect for the misconduct proved against the petitioner. Therefore, I hold the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. Accordingly, the order of removal dated 21.12.1994 (Ex.M-19) is hereby set aside and award is passed directing the respondent to withhold two increments without cumulative effect and reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service without any attendant benefits and without back wages. “ Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the punishment of stoppage of two increments, and further to grant the relief of attendant benefits and back wages, which were denied by the labour Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that once it is held by the labour Court that charges 5 to 9 are not proved against the petitioner, denial of back wages and attendant benefits and imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect is unwarranted. Be that as it may. The labour Court in its wisdom while exercising powers conferred under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act held that extreme penalty of removal from service is very harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, and therefore, granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages and without any attendant benefits. But it directed the management to impose stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The impugned award was passed on 9th March, 1999. I am of the opinion that by this time, the stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was given effect and restored and therefore, question of interference into the order passed by the labour Court at this stage does not arise. In view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that the labour Court in its discretion passed the award by taking all these circumstances into consideration and it has not committed any error calling for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner does not deserve for any further relief as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated: 10.2.2011 Nn. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.1530 OF 2003 10.2.2011