HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.15074 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award dated 28.1.2005 made in I.D.No.78 of 2004 by the Industrial Tribunal II, Hyderabad, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner-workman under section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking to set aside the order of removal passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 22.2.2001 and to pass other reliefs, was dismissed in toto. It appears that the petitioner-workman was appointed as conductor in APSRTC in the year 1987 and his services were regularized in the year 1991. While that being so, on 23.7.2000 while he was conducting bus on the route Zaheerabad to Matoor a check was exercised at stage No.10 by the checking officials of the Corporation and certain cash and ticket irregularities were found and as such, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges: 1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (XXXII) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to collect fare and issue ticket to a batch of Three (3) passengers found traveling without ticket who boarded your bus at Raikode and bound for Matoor exstages 7 to 10 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having closed the ticket numbers of all denominations in the SR upto stage No.10 without completing the ticket issue which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 (XXXII) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation, as the same was not convincing, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and after completing the formalities, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 22.2.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal. But the same was dismissed on 23.8.2001 and further the review filed by him was also dismissed on 26.3.2002. Having no other option, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, which is numbered as I.D.No.78 of 2004. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the petitioner- workman that absolutely there was no negligence on his part in conducting the bus and attending to his duties and the charges framed against him are as vague as they could be and absolutely, there was no evidence to prove the misconduct of the petitioner and even assuming that there was some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, imposition of punishment of removal was shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and therefore, the order of the removal is liable to be set aside. The respondents filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the enquiry was properly conducted and the same is valid as per law and that the charges in the present case are grave in nature and therefore, the management had no option except to impose punishment of removal from service. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was involved in similar misconduct and removed from service on 18th August, 1992, but however, he was reinstated into service in pursuance of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.38 of 1993, and further, he was censured thrice and his increments were deferred four times for the similar misconduct of cash and ticket irregularities, and therefore, the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and review authority rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and that it is not a fit case to take any lenient view and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for. Before the Labour Court, no oral or documentary evidence was let in on either side. However, on the basis of the material placed before the labour Court, it came to the conclusion that the charges are grave in nature and they are proved and therefore, the order of removal passed needs no interference. Thus, the labour Court refused to grant any relief sought for. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the enquiry was not properly conducted and absolutely there was no evidence to prove the charges and even assuming that there is misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the same were trivial in nature and they do not call for extreme penalty of removal from service and therefore, the award passed by the labour Court is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the charges are grave in nature and the labour Court has rightly refused to interfere with the order of removal passed by the respondents and that no grounds are made out calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and the other material made available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner had put in 13 years of service prior to his removal from service. However, he suffered from the order of removal and also other minor punishment. The fact remains to be considered in this case is that the labour Court itself recorded a finding that the concerned passengers admitted in their spot statement that they had informed the petitioner that one of them had purchased their tickets and that it was their fault only, and admitting so, they paid penalty of Rs.50/- each for their fault and so, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. But the Labour Court held that it was the duty of the petitioner to verify the fact and also to see that all the tickets are issued since the bus was not overloaded and only 11 passengers were there. Once it is accepted that the passengers themselves have stated that they did not take tickets and paid penalty, the disciplinary authority could have accepted the statement made by the petitioner. But neither the disciplinary authority nor the labour Court had taken this aspect into consideration, which is very crucial in a case of this nature. May be the petitioner was bound to count the number of passengers and verify the SR tickets at every stage. But once it is found that it was the mistake on the part of the passengers and they paid penalty of Rs.50/-, each - since no passenger would pay without there being any fault on his part, the respondents ought to have accepted the same and would have taken a lenient view in the matter though there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner in conducting the bus and in not issuing the tickets and not collecting the money. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the labour Court failed to take the over all circumstances into consideration and it has erred in not invoking its discretionary powers conferred under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act and therefore, the award passed by the labour Court needs to be modified as under: (1) The respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without backwages and other attendant benefits. (1) Further, the respondent-management shall not count the interregnum period viz., from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement, for the purpose of seniority etc., but shall count the same for the purpose of retirement benefits only. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated: 11.2.2011 Nn. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.15074 OF 2005 11.2.2011