IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 13282 of 1999 Between: N. Ramulu S/o. N.Chandraiah, R/o. Post & Village: Alur Mandal: Chevella Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Addl. Industrial Tribunal cum-Addl. Labour Court Hyderabad. 2 Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Uppal Depot, Uppal Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ after calling for the records in I.D.No.57/97 on the file of Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad by setting aside the award and consequently direct the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR V.T.M.PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the workman being aggrieved by the award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in I.D.No.57 of 1997, dated 07.12.1998, wherein the application filed by the petitioner-workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) was rejected without granting any relief. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Conductor in the 2nd respondent Corporation in the year 1968. While so, when he was conducting Bus bearing No.AP 9Z-1416 on the route Yadgirigutta to Uppal, a check was exercised by the officials of the 2nd respondent Corporation at Raigiri village, stage No.12 and two charge memos were prepared alleging certain cash and ticket irregularities. Thereafter they issued a charge sheet dated 15.02.1996 alleging that (i) he refused to acknowledge and receive the charge memo dated 03.02.1996; (ii) for having failed to acknowledge the statement of passengers travelling in the bus; (iii) for having issued tickets of Rs.8.50 ps. denomination to 14 passengers who were traveling from Yadgirigutta bound for Uppal, ex-stages 14 to 3 alleging that they were already issued on 02.02.1996, i.e. previous day; and (iv) for having re-issued 14 tickets of Rs.3.25 ps. denomination who boarded the bus at Yadgirigutta and bound for Bhongiri, ex-stages 14 to 11 which were already accounted in S.R. at stage No.10 and 1 on 03.02.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension and he had submitted a detailed explanation on 29.02.1996. Thereafter a farce of enquiry was conducted and a show cause notice dated 04.08.1996 issued proposing to remove him from service. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not properly considered and finally proceedings dated 31.08.1996 were issued imposing punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Act before the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal has also not properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to an erroneous conclusion that the removal order passed by the 2nd respondent- management is just and proper and no relief was granted. Hence this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 2nd respondent Corporation denying the allegations made by the petitioner and further asserting that the enquiry was conducted by giving full and fair opportunity to the petitioner, duly following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (CC&A) Regulations. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilt of the charges and the disciplinary authority after re-appreciation of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be removed from service for the charges proved against him, as such, after receiving the explanation from the petitioner, removed him from service. The same neither can be said to be arbitrary nor illegal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the award passed by the Tribunal and other material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct on re-issue of 14 tickets, which were used in the earlier stages, causing loss of revenue to the corporation. Even his past conduct does not inspire the Court requiring any interference in the award passed by the Tribunal. Apart from the misconduct committed by the petitioner as to the issuance of tickets, he also refused to acknowledge the charge memo issued by the checking officials on the spot and also refused to attest the statement of the passengers travelling in the bus. The petitioner not only exhibited insubordination, but he had also committed cash and ticket irregularities. The petitioner under charges 3 and 4, re-issued 28 tickets i.e. 14 tickets of Rs.8.50 p.s. denomination and 14 tickets of Rs.3.25 ps. denomination. Those tickets are used tickets and were issued to the passengers who travelled in the previous trips as per the S.R.No.8842698 maintained by the petitioner himself. The re-issue of tickets is a serious misconduct. It is a pre- meditated act of misconduct. He collected already used tickets from the passengers of the previous trip and issued in the present trip causing loss to the revenues of the Corporation. The charges were proved in full. Apart from this, past conduct of the petitioner was very bad. The petitioner was censured seven times, his annual increments were deferred for four times, he was suspended from service for five times and he was also removed from service twice on 21.01.1969 and 03.09.1990 earlier. In view of the misconduct, the Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that punishment of removal from service is truly harsh and highly disproportionate of misconduct was not correct. The misconduct committed by the petitioner is serious of nature and punishment awarded is just and proper. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error requiring interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J Dated: 21.07.2005 Dsr To: 1. The Presiding Officer, Addl.Industrial Tribunal-cum- Addl.Labour Court, Hyderabad 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Uppal Depot, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District 3. Two CCs to the G.P.for Labour, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 4. Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MUK}