HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 5649 OF 2003 . DATED 9th September, 2011. BETWEEN T.Gangaram …Petitioner And The Honourable Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, rep. by its Presiding Officer and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 5649 of 2003. ORDER: The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D.No. 60 of 2002 on the file of the first respondent-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, questions the NIL award dated 3.10.2002 passed therein. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the second respondent-Corporation in the month of March, 1993. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the change sheet dated 23.4.2002 on the following charges: “1). For having violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which constituted misconduct under Regulation No.28 (vi)(a) APSRTC Employees (conduct) Rug.1963. 2) For having failed to issue the tickets to a batch of eight passengers (6 adults + 2 chargeable children) despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.30/- from them at the boarding point itself (Rs.4/- each from 6 adult passengers Rs.3/- each from 2 chargeable children) who boarded your bus at Laxmidevipally and found alighting at out skirts of Rechapally ex-stages ¾ to 5, which constitutes to mis-conduct under Regulations 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg. 1963”. 3) For having closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations upto stage No.5 without completing above ticket issues which constitutes misconduct under Regulation No.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963”. After following the due procedure in conducting the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 20.09.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by order dated 24.11.2001. The review petition filed by him was also rejected on 12.4.2002. The Industrial Dispute being ID. No. 60 of 2002 raised by him, impugned in the present Writ Petition, also ended in dismissal by an Award dated 3.10.2002 passed therein. Hence, the Writ Petition. During the adjudication of the Industrial Dispute, the petitioner did not question the validity of the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court examined the evidence adduced on record and found no reason to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer. The second respondent-Corporation filed counter. While reiterating the procedure that followed in the enquiry it stated that the passengers in question pertinently deposed regarding payment of requisite fare to the petitioner at the boarding point itself and the petitioner acknowledging the same did not issue tickets then and there. It further stated that the Labour Court after careful adjudication of the matter, dismissed the ID confirming the proceedings of the disciplinary authority and as such there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court failed to examine the evidence on record in the right perspective. He contends that the findings recorded in the enquiry were perverse and opposed to the material on record. He points out that there is no misappropriation by the petitioner nor had he any fraudulent intention to defraud the revenue of the Corporation. Even the checking officials did not find any excess amount with the petitioner. He asserts that the eight passengers batch boarded the bus at stage No. 4 bound for Stage No.5 and when the petitioner was in the process of issuing tickets, the check was conducted and the checking officials did not allow him to issue tickets to the said passengers. He further argues that the Labour Court did not make any effort to discuss the evidence on record, except making casual references to the documentary evidence. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19463 of 2002 and judgment in P.F.Khan Vs. Depote Manager, APSRTC (2008 (3) ALT 234). Perused the case file. The quintessence of the charges framed against the petitioner was that the petitioner did not follow the rule ‘issue and start’; having received the requisite fare from the batch of eight passengers, thereby failed to issue tickets to them at the boarding point itself and that before completing the issuance of tickets to the said passengers, he closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations upto the next pre- reach stage, i.e. Stage No.5. As regards the said charges, the petitioner had explained that when he was about to issue the tickets to the batch of eight passengers at stage No.4 itself, check took place and he was thus prevented from issuing tickets to the passengers. It may be noticed that the petitioner admitted the receipt of fare from the batch of passengers. The batch of passengers in question in the first instance stated to the checking officials that they did not pay the fare, but when they were demanded to pay the penalty, they disclosed that they paid the fare and the conductor did not issue tickets to them. Even for the sake of argument, if we accept the plea of the petitioner that when he was about to issue tickets to the said passengers, the so- called check took place and checking officials did not allow him to issue tickets thereafter, but, there was no explanation forthcoming as to why he had closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations upto stage No.5. Normally, the petitioner had to close the ticket tray numbers before reaching the next stage and after issuing the tickets. Therefore, the act of the petitioner in closing the ticket tray of all denominations even before completing the issuance of tickets to the passengers batch in question manifestly constitutes misconduct under the relevant regulations of the respondent Corporation. That being so, the decisions cited supra relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, have no application to the facts of the present case. In deed, the Labour Court has appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the charges are minor and technical in nature and as such punishment of removal is extreme, cannot be accepted having due regard to the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case. Once the petitioner/workman is found guilty of the charges levelled against him reflecting lack of integrity on his part and failure to discharge his fiduciary obligations to the Corporation, there would be no room for lenience or application of the doctrine of proportionality. This was also of the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs. Hoti lal {(2003) 3 SCC 605}. Viewed thus, the award of the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse and opposed to the material on record. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 9th September, 2011. Msnro