HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.638 OF 2002 Dated 23-9-2010 Between: P.Venkateswara Rao. …Petitioner. And: The Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and another. ...Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.638 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner questions the award passed by the Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.240 of 1999 dated 16-7-2001 confirming the order dated 13-1-1999 passed by the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager dismissing the petitioner from services of the post of conductor. Petitioner herein is the workman and the respondents herein are the A.P.S.R.T.C. authorities. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: While the petitioner was working as conductor at Gokavaram Depot and when he was conducting bus bearing No.AP 9Z 4577 on 10-6-1998 on the route Gokavaram Bus stand to Tanikonda, a check was made by the TTIs at stage No.4/5 and he was issued a charge memo by the checking officials alleging that a passenger was traveling with a used ticket said to be reissued by the petitioner. Basing on the said check memo, the petitioner was placed under suspension duly issuing the following charge: “For having issued the ticket bearing No.196/415607 of Rs.3/- to a passenger who boarded the bus at Gadala and bound for Korukonda ex-stages 3/4 to 6 which was already issued at the stage No.8 of the 1st trip of the service and accounted for the service SR bearing No.6971416 dated 1-6-1998 while you were conducting the vehicle No. AP.9Z 4577 on the route Gokavaram Bus Stand (Rajahmundry)-Tantikonda on 10-6-1998” It is also his further case that he filed an explanation to the said charge sheet denying the allegations made against him. He reiterated the facts mentioned in his spot explanation stating that he was not doing well and in spite of his weakness, he was conducting the bus and the passenger from whom the ticket has been collected by the checking officials was in drunken condition at the time of check and the passenger failed to take the ticket and collected the used ticket from the floor of the bus and showed to the TTIs out of fear and he has not collected any amount from the said passenger and the ticket mentioned in the charge sheet was not issued by him. However the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquiry into the matter. The Enquiry Officer without following any due procedure and without calling the passenger who is the prime witness of the enquiry, conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the 2nd respondent- Depot Manager holding that the charge was proved. Basing on the said enquiry report, the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager passed the orders on 13-1-1999 removing him from service. Aggrieved by the said removal, he preferred an appeal before the Deputy Traffic Manager, Rajahmundry and the same was rejected by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same, he filed I.D.No.240 of 1999 before the 1st respondent-Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. On 16-7-2001, the 1st respondent-Tribunal, dismissed the said I.D. confirming the order of the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry observing the principles of natural justice and issued relevant documents to the petitioner. The petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded in the enquiry. Basing on the available evidence before him, the Enquiry Officer opined that the petitioner was guilty of the charge and sent his report to the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager. The 2nd respondent-Depot Manager after perusing the enquiry sent a show cause notice to the petitioner. But the petitioner did not give any reply to the show cause notice and as such, the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager imposed a punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. The claim of the petitioner that he has not collected fare and not issued ticket can not be relied upon since he has remitted Rs.1487-50ps correctly after the spell of his duty. The TTIs have taken Rs.4.00 denominations fresh ticket as TPT and made him to return Rs.1.00 to the passenger and the same was accepted by the petitioner in his statement and therefore, the issue of collecting fare is proved. The punch marks on the confiscated ticket proves that the petitioner is not innocent. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the passenger was not at all examined during the course of enquiry. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not issue seized ticket and the passenger was in a drunken state and he is mentally not sound and hence, there is no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court that the material elicited in the cross examination of the TTIs before the Enquiry Officer, wherein the TTIs has admitted that the passenger appeared to be consumed liquor but he was conscious and the statement was also written by the passenger himself. A perusal of record goes to show that the reissuance of ticket of Rs.3/- denomination bears 4 punch marks for upward journey and downward journey and the SR was closed and the workman remitted the amount including the fare for the reissue ticket. If the passenger fails to obtain any ticket, the petitioner is supposed to ask the passenger to get down the bus even at the next stage and if the ticket was having punch marks only on one side, there may be possibility of not collecting any fare from the passenger, but the ticket had two punch marks for upward journey and another two such marks for downward journey. Thus, the statement of the passenger and the four punches found on the seized tickets are dispelling the case of the petitioner as rightly observed by the tribunal. The Tribunal also relied on a decision reported in S.A. GANI v. CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-I, HYDERABAD ([1]) wherein it was held that “Order not liable to be interfered under Article 226 as the punishment is not so grossly disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court” However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the ends of justice, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the respondent- authorities to appoint the petitioner afresh as conductor. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of and the order impugned is modified directing the respondent-authorities to appoint the petitioner afresh without any back wages and continuity of service. No costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Dated 23-9-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.638 OF 2002 Dated 23-9-2010 [1] 2000 (5) ALD 144 (DB)