HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27005 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award made in I.D.No.16 of 2003 dated 14/02/2006 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, whereunder the application filed under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) by the petitioner herein seeking to set aside the removal order passed by the management and reinstate with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits was dismissed. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent No.2 is the management. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor in 1983 into the service of APSRTC. While he was attached to Parkal Bus Depot, and conducting bus bearing No.AP10Z-8684, on the route Parkal-Hanamkonda-Chennur, at stage No.23/21 i.e., Dhanwada, at 4-45 PM, a check was exercised by the checking officials, and found certain cash and ticket irregularities, and issued a charge memo. Basing on the charge memo, a charge sheet was issued enumerating the following charges: “1. For having collected requisite fare of Rs.30.00 each from 4 passengers found traveling from Godavarikhani to Bhupalpally ex-stages 29 to 15 with ticket bearing No.191/709790, 792, 794 and 795 of Rs.30.00 denomination which were already issued and shown from Hanamkonda to Chennur trip and accounted vide S.R.No.A6/8969636, which is misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having collected requisite fare of Rs.23.00 from one more passengers found traveling from Godavarikhani to Kataram, ex-stages 29 to 19 and issued ticket bearing No.191/709786 of Rs.30.00 denomination and 147/609465 of Rs.3.00 denomination, which were already issued in up journey from Hanamkonda to Chennur and shown in your S.R. at stage No.3 (Indaram) which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having collected requisite fare of Rs.30.00 each from above said 4 passengers found traveling from Godavarikhana to Bhupalpally and failed to issue valid passenger tickets, which is misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 4. For having collected requisite fare of Rs.30.00 each from above said one more passengers found traveling from Godavarikhani to Kataram and failed to issue valid passenger ticket, which is misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 5. For having collected used tickets bearing No.191/709790, 792, 793, 795 and 786 of Rs.30.00 denomination and 147/689465 of Rs.3.00 deno., from the passengers which were already sold and shown from Hanamkonda to Chennur trip and reissued the same tickets to above aid 5 passengers with malafide intention, which is misconduct under Reg.28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” The petitioner submitted his explanation. However, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a detailed domestic enquiry was ordered and conducted, and after completing all the formalities, the disciplinary authority passed order of removal dated 06/07/2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal, however, the same was dismissed. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Act seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages etc. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that the enquiry was not properly conducted. Even assuming that the enquiry was properly conducted, there was no evidence to show that the charges were proved and the evidence was not properly appreciated by the disciplinary authority. The punishment of removal from service was not proportionate to that of the mis-conduct alleged. The respondents filed detailed counter resisting the claim and praying to dismiss the ID. Before the Labour Court, none was examined on behalf of the parties and no documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the workman. However, on behalf of the respondent-management, documents Exs.M-1 to M-18 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the material made available before the industrial Tribunal, it came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted was valid, the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and the punishment imposed was proportionate to that of the misconduct. Therefore, dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner had put in a clean and long service of 28 years, by the time he was removed from service. Therefore, the labour Court ought not to have dismissed the application without granting any relief. He further stated that the enquiry was not properly conducted. There was absolutely no evidence to hold that the petitioner guilty of the charges, and even otherwise, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent/APSRTC, Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that this is a case of re-issue of tickets and the Labour Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of passengers during the course of enquiry as they spoke something at the time of check and something else at the time of enquiry. Apart from this, the past conduct of the petitioner was not clean. Therefore, the labour Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy to be shown and no relief can be granted. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and perused the impugned order and material made available on record. The findings recorded by the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was properly conducted and the charges were proved cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal in view of the documentary evidence as well as evidence of the passengers which was inconsistent. At the earliest point of time, during the course of check, they have stated that the conductor collected the money but issued those tickets which were already issued in the earlier journey by the petitioner himself. However, the past conduct of the petitioner seems to be not that much clean as is claimed by him. He was imposed with punishment of removal from service at the earliest point of time immediately after his appointment on 17/04/1994 and he was re-instated as fresh conductor and his increments were deferred for 13 times. However, there was no other major punishment was imposed on the petitioner. Under those circumstances, by taking a lenient view of the matter, the Labour Court ought to have, instead of confirming the removal from service, directed the management to treat that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service of the corporation as on the date of removal from service i.e., 06/07/2002. Under those circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the award passed by the labour Court is modified to be read as under: The respondent/management is directed to treat the petitioner having retired from service compulsorily with effect from 06/07/2002. It is needless to say that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as if retired from service compulsorily with effect from 06/07/2002. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 16th April, 2010 SKM