IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 23362 of 2000 Between: M.Narayana, S/o. Ramaiah, E.91556, H.No. 4-17, Narsapur, Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sanga Reddy Depot, Medak District. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.II, Chandravihar, M.J.Road, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order 02/104 (14)/91-SRD, dt.12.9.91 of the 1st Respondent and also award passed by the 2nd Respondent in I.D.No. 100/93, dt.27.8.98 published vide G.O.Rt.No. 1780, dt.12.10.98 as illegal, arbitrary and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and full back wages and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 23362 of 2000 ORDER : The petitioner, who was working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), has ﬁled this writ petition, questioning the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, dated 27th August 1998, passed in I.D.No.100 of 1993. By the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has conﬁrmed the orders of removal passed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 2. Facts of the case are, on 10th March 1991, while the petitioner was conducting the bus on the route from Takulapally to Hyderabad, the checking oﬃcials of the Corporation have exercised a check at Stage No.23 i.e. Imlibun Bus station and served a charge memo on the petitioner, alleging that he was in possession of excess bus cash of Rs.99/-, and that he had over-stamped ticket block Nos.004/71171 to 799 of Rs.2/- denomination, as Rs.3/-, and sold out the said tickets. The petitioner has submitted in his spot explanation that the Assistant Depot Clerk of the Corporation was to open the ticket tray numbers in the Statistical Return (SR), and as such, he is not responsible for such over-stamping. Dissatisﬁed with the explanation oﬀered by him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was charge-sheeted under Ex.M-10, dated 23rd March 1991, with the following charges : “1. For having excess bus cash of Rs.99/- when checked by the TTIs while you were conducting the bus on 10.03.1991 and they found police warrants nil, passengers dues nil, un-serial tickets sold nil and other vouchers also nil, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxiv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963” (the TTIs have obtained TPTs for Rs.99/- at the time of check). 2. For having the block No.004/71171 to 799 of Rs.2/- denomination as per the way bill and SR issued to you on 9.3.91 is over- stamped by you as Rs.3.00/- and sold as Rs.3/- tickets even there were two Rs.3/- denomination ticket blocks available in the tray and hence the way bill No.0141/19641180, dt.9.3.91, SR.No.AO/5288534, dt.9.3.91 and the remaining overstamped tickets of Rs.2/- denomination from 004/721782 to 799 as Rs.3/- were conﬁscated by the checking oﬃcials, since it is a fraud, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. In view of the denial of charges framed against the petitioner, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer. The inquiry oﬃcer has ﬁnally submitted his ﬁndings in the inquiry report under Ex.M-15. Based on the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer, by issuing 2nd show cause notice, and by considering the explanation ﬁled by the petitioner, an order of removal was passed against him. 4. Questioning the said order of removal, the petitioner herein has ﬁled an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.100 of 1993. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was let in on behalf of either of the parties, but however, documents in Exs.M-1 to M-23 were marked on behalf of the Corporation. On behalf of the petitioner-workman, a memo was ﬁled under Section 11-A of the Act without disputing the validity of the domestic inquiry. The Tribunal, while re-appreciating the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for over-stamping of the tickets of Rs.2/- denomination with Rs.3/-, and also found that the other consequential charge of possessing Rs.99/- extra in the cash bag, was proved. By recording a ﬁnding that the petitioner was involved in serious misconduct of cash and ticket irregularities, the Tribunal has rejected his claim for reinstatement into service. It was further held by the Tribunal that the punishment of removal of petitioner could not be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against him. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 6. In this writ petition, it is submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was not responsible for over-stamping of tickets of Rs.2/- denomination with Rs.3/-. It is submitted that only the Assistant Depot Clerk, who was the issuing authority, was responsible for it. It is further submitted that the 2nd charge was consequential one to the 1st charge, and as he has already collected Rs.3/- from the passengers on the tickets which were sold with over-stamping, the same has resulted in his possessing Rs.99/- extra in the cash bag. 7. I have perused the award passed by the Tribunal and also the detailed inquiry report, which is marked as Ex.M-15. The inquiry oﬃcer has recorded the following findings in his inquiry report : “It is crystal clear that the delinquent conductor has maintained the places of the blocks in his ticket tray with a pre-plan to misguide the concerned supervisors at the depot level and at the checking level by keeping the ticket blocks in the ticket tray in such a way. The said two diﬀerent running blocks of printed Rs.3/- den. the tray numbers of the tickets which were not opened in the S.R. by the ADC (despatching). Thus, the conductor could sell the tickets No.004/721700 to 781 of Rs.2/- denomination which were over- stamped as Rs.3/- denomination inspite of possessing two blocks of printed Rs.3/- denomination blocks. On perusal of the conﬁscated ticket block containing unsold ticket Nos.004/721782 to 799 possessed in his tray was over-stamped as Rs.3/- denomination.” 8. From the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer in the disciplinary proceedings, it is evident that the petitioner alone is responsible for over-stamping of Rs.2/- denomination tickets with Rs.3/-. The petitioner has also accepted the same during his spot explanation at the time of inspection. In addition to the same, the inspecting oﬃcials have found excess cash with the petitioner, as he has collected Rs.3/- for the tickets of Rs.2/- denomination, by over-stamping them. In view of the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer in the domestic inquiry, and in the absence of any additional evidence from the side of the petitioner before the Tribunal, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal. The ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer are in conformity with the evidence on record, and even a memo was also ﬁled by the petitioner, before the Tribunal, without disputing the validity of the domestic inquiry. 9. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled, but however, the charges are very serious, as the petitioner has indulged in changing the denomination itself by resorting to over-stamping on the tickets issued by the Corporation. Having regard to such a serious charge levelled against the petitioner, which is proved in the departmental inquiry, it cannot be said that the punishment of removal imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd September 2008 ajr To 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Sanga Reddy Depot, Medak District. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.II, Chandravihar, M.J.Road, Hyderabad