IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27712 of 2005 Between: E. Subba Rao S/o Late Nagabushanam R/o Dammapet, Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Khammam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT 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 appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quash the impugned award dated 31-08-2005 made in I.D.No.85 of 2002, published on 22-12-2005, in not granting any relief as arbitrary, unjust, in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Art 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits including back wages in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for Respondent: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.27712 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: With the consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory matters’. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award dated 31-8-2005 made in I.D.No.85 of 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court at Warangal. Petitioner is the Management. Respondent is the workman. It appears, on 26-6-1998 when the petitioner was conducting the bus bearing No.AP9Z-1124 on route Aswaraopet to Mukkavarigudem at stage No.2/3 i.e. Palacherla, a check was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found. On the basis of the report submitted by the checking officials, the disciplinary authority issued a charge enumerating the following charges: 1. For having violated the rule issue of correct tickets to all passengers and start, which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having issued unpunched tickets bearing No.231/125674 and 676 of Rs.3/- deno.E-2 duly collecting requisite fare of Rs.3/- each from two passengers having boarded the bus at Jeelugumally and bound for Mukkinavarigudem ex-stages 2 to 4 which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having issued unpunched tickets bearing No.070/020494 to 497 of Rs.2.50 deno.E-4 duly collecting requisite fare of Rs.2.50 each from four passengers having boarded the bus at Jeelugumally and bound for Palacherla ex-stages 2 to 2/3 which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 4. For having dragged the R No.7792028 from TTIs and torned it into pieces and ran away from the spot with torned SR at the time of check, which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 5. For having misbehaved and not cooperated with the checking officials at the time of check on 26-6-98 to discharge their duties, which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, petitioner was removed from service and the appeal filed by him was also rejected. Therefore, having no other option, petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act’) in I.D.No.85 of 2002. It was the contention of the petitioner that the charges were very vague in nature, the enquiry was not properly conducted and the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer are contrary to the evidence on record. Further, assuming that there is some such misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and explaining as to the graveness of the charges. It was asserted that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the I.D. Though no oral evidence was adduced on either side, on behalf of the respondent-Management, Exs.M1 to M22 were marked. On a perusal of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and it was found that the petitioner issued unpunched tickets to 6 passengers. Further, he is guilty of insubordination and misbehaviour with TTIs in snatching the SR from their hands and tearing it into pieces. Thus, he wanted to conceal the evidence against himself by tearing the SR. This itself shows that he wanted to misappropriate the monies of the Corporation. Thus the Labour Court refused to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act and rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the petitioner had more than 11 years of continuous and unblemish service, which is not disputed by the respondent. He further submits that the charges appear to be very grave, but there was no evidence to prove the same. It is absolutely incorrect on the part of the Management in holding that the petitioner closed SR at stage No.2. In fact, one of the charges is that the petitioner snatched away the SR and tore it; therefore, the question of examining the SR does not arise nor it is their case that the SR was available thereafter or in pieces. The only mistake committed by the petitioner was that he failed to punch the tickets after collecting the money from the concerned passengers and issuing the tickets. Except this, there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner. In fact, the TTIs who had checked the bus had punched the tickets and recorded the statements. This is not a case where the petitioner did not issue tickets having collected money. Petitioner collected the money and issued the tickets. Non-punching of the tickets is only a small mistake on the part of the petitioner and for this, he could not have been denied any relief by the Labour Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation supported the Award passed by the Labour Court and contended that the Labour Court itself held that the charges were proved and the petitioner does not deserve any relief being granted. Under those circumstances, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Award and other material made available on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when SR was torn into pieces, the question of closing it without mentioning these tickets does not arise. How this charge was framed – the details are not available. May be, the SR was torn into pieces. At this length of time, it is difficult for this Court to go into this aspect and come to a conclusion. But, the fact remains that the petitioner issued tickets, but did not punch them properly and closed the SR at stage No.2. Thus, the explanation offered by the petitioner seems to be not in consonance with the narration of events. Admittedly, there were about 80 passengers in the bus at the time when it was checked and 74 passengers were having tickets and even the 6 passengers under the charges were also holding the tickets, but they were not punched. This seems to be a serious negligence and misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court refused to pass any orders and even did not invoke the powers under Section 11-A of the Act. Even in the counter filed before this Court, the respondent has not stated that the past conduct of the petitioner was of any blemish. Thus, the petitioner had put in 11 years of service before his termination, which was blameless. Under those circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that though the enquiry conducted by the Management is valid and the charges are proved, in a case of this nature, the denial of all the benefits and rejecting the whole case of the petitioner seems to be unreasonable. The Labour Court has discussed at length as to the aspect of proportionality of punishment, but refused to exercise its powers under Section 11 of the Act. The Labour Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the Act and granted some relief in view of the fact that the order of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. Under those circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, the Award of the Labour Court is modified to the following effect: “In the result, the Order of removal is set aside and the respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh Conductor. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any service benefits, such as, continuity of service, attendant benefits etc., for any purpose. His service shall be reckoned for all the purposes from the date of his reinstatement only.” With the above modification of the impugned Award, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 04-3-2008 prk