THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WA No.1161 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The un-successful petitioner in WP No.8461 of 1999 filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 28-2-2003 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. In the said writ petition, the appellant challenged the award dated 29-12-1998 passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.143 of 1997. The ID was raised by the appellant under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the order dated 6.5.1997 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘APSRTC’) removing him from service. The removal was the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the APSRTC against the appellant. It appears that while the appellant was conducting a bus service between Secunderabad and Afzulgunj, a check took place and certain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. On that basis, two charges were framed against the appellant. Thereupon, the APSRTC, after conducting a departmental enquiry, passed the order dated 6.5.1997 removing him from service. The Labour Court, upon appreciation of the material on record, came to the finding that the first charge against the appellant was not proved, but held against him so far as the second charge is concerned. The second charge was with regard to issuance of two used tickets of Rs.1.50 denomination each to two passengers. The Labour Court was of the opinion that the appellant had put forth inconsistent stands with regard to the issuance of these tickets and therefore concluded that he had re- issued tickets which had already been sold. Holding that the said charge was clearly established and that it was a very serious charge involving moral turpitude, the Labour Court opined that his removal from service cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate and accordingly dismissed the ID. The learned Single Judge observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court could not re-appreciate the evidence, as the Writ Court sitting in judicial review over the decision of the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction more extensive than that of the Labour Court. The Learned Judge was also not inclined to accept that the punishment imposed was disproportionate. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed confirming the award of the Labour Court. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the finding of the disciplinary authority was perverse inasmuch as the APSRTC’s own witness, i.e., the TTI, had spoken of the fact that the two passengers who had not produced the tickets in the first instance, came up thereafter with the used tickets upon being threatened with a fine of Rs.500/- each. The evidence of the TTI was as hereunder: “When we have asked the said two passengers to show their tickets they have kept quiet for a while duly standing by the side of each other without showing any tickets to us and also without telling anything about their purchase of tickets. I thought that they were ticketless passengers and asked them to pay the fine of Rs.500/- each. Thereafter, I became busy in checking the tickets of the other passengers, thereafter I was standing near them. After preventing the said two passengers to alight the bus, within a few minutes they have shown the above said two tickets. When I have checked these two tickets and verified their accountal in the SR, I found that the said two were already accounted as having been issued in 16.10 hrs trip. Then I have confronted the said two passengers to the conductor and shown these tickets to the conductor, the conductor has informed that he has neither issued them any tickets including the said two tickets nor collected any amount from them. On this, I have again asked the said two passengers to tell the truth and they have firmly stated that the conductor has issued the said two tickets to them duly collecting the requisite fare @ Rs. 1.50 each and they have given in writing in the presence of the conductor. So, we have framed the case based on the passengers statement.” The original record is also produced before us by Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the APSRTC. The statements of these two witnesses were affirmed by their thumb impressions, clearly indicating that they were illiterate. However, the statements were detailed and also contain the ticket numbers. No names were indicated under the thumb impressions. In the light of the deposition of the TTI himself, which indicates that there was every possibility of these two passengers having picked up the used tickets from the floor of the bus so as to avoid payment of the fine, the truth is not far to gather. Further, one passenger’s statement indicates that a sum of Rs.50/- was paid, which was thereafter corrected to read as Rs.2/-. There is no explanation as to why such a discrepancy crept into the passenger’s statement. The finding recorded on the second charge solely relying on the passengers’ statement was opposed to the TTI’s evidence and the probabilities of the case. It clearly manifests perversity. The foundation for the finding on the second charge is the evidence of the two passengers. This evidence was diluted greatly by the deposition of the TTI himself, but was completely overlooked by the Courts below. Once the perversity of the finding is established, as in the present case, this Court would not be sitting in appeal over the finding of the disciplinary authority and would not be substituting its own views in the matter. The finding, being perverse, is bound to fall on its own. The removal of the appellant based on such a finding is therefore unsustainable in law. The order dated 6.5.1997 removing the appellant from service is accordingly set aside and the writ appeal is allowed directing the APSRTC to reinstate the appellant in service with continuity of service for all purposes, but in the circumstances, without back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ (JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) rkk DATED: 1-12-2009 ___________________________ (JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR)