IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.8640 of 2001 Between: J. Ramesh .. Petitioner AND 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad. 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Cantonment Bus Depot, Secunderabad. 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.III, Chandravihar, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.8640 of 2001 ORDER: The Writ Petition is directed against the award in I.D.No.359 of 1992, on the file of Labour Court No.III, Hyderabad, dated 20.07.1994, by which the writ petitioner was directed to be reinstated on the same terms and conditions as earlier, but without considering his past service and regularizing him in future after keeping a watch on the performance of his duties. 2. The writ petitioner was working as a Conductor with the respondent corporation and during a check at Stage No.16 while he was the Conductor in the bus on Route No.29-A on 08.12.1988, he was alleged to be in possession of unconcerned tickets which were not supplied to him under the Way Bill No.132/13529, dated 05.12.1988. There was no mala fide intention to defraud the respondent corporation in the possession of such unconcerned tickets. A charge sheet, dated 16.12.1988, was issued under the relevant Conduct Regulations for the alleged misconduct under Regulation 28 of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963, and after the writ petitioner submitted his explanation, an enquiry was conducted and he was ultimately removed from service by an order No.02/104(88)/88-IDM, dated 08.02.1989, after issuing a show cause notice based on the enquiry report. The appeal by the writ petitioner to the higher authority also failed and hence, he approached the Labour Court with I.D.No.359 of 1992. 3. The respondent corporation contested the Industrial Dispute claiming that every opportunity was given to the writ petitioner during the departmental enquiry and the respondent corporation, basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, came to an independent conclusion on which the punishment followed after again issuing a show cause notice to the writ petitioner on 28.01.1989 and considering his explanation. The charge is one of a serious cash and ticket irregularity and hence, the writ petitioner, working on daily wage basis, was disengaged. 4. After marking Exs.M-1 to M-14 for the respondent management during the enquiry, the Labour Court rendered the impugned award noting that the writ petitioner did not dispute his being in possession of unconcerned tickets worth Rs.12.75 Ps. of various denominations which were confiscated by the Checking Officials. However, the Labour Court found that the respondent corporation should have given an opportunity to the writ petitioner to mend himself and the tickets worth Rs.12.75 Ps. only were not used for reissuing the tickets in the relevant journey. In the absence of any positive unlawful act, the Labour Court considered it to be only a technical violation of the rules and felt that only a lenient punishment will be just and proportionate while the respondent corporation can keep a watch on the petitioner in future. Accordingly, it gave direction to the respondent corporation to reinstate the writ petitioner on the same terms and conditions without considering his past service. 5. The writ petitioner claims herein that after finding that no offence was committed, the Labour Court ought to have discussed his explanation about keeping the unconcerned tickets only for payment of dues that have to be paid to the passengers and had forgotten them. His claim that he never thought to reissue the tickets should have been considered and due to his poor background, he ought to have been given full back wages and other consequential benefits of continuity of service. 6. Heard Sri P. Vekateswar Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri K. Madhav Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 7. The respondents 1 and 2 did not, in any manner, challenge the conclusions of the Labour Court about the possession of the unconcerned tickets by the Conductor without anything further being only a technical violation of the rules without committal of any positive act or offence. While the factual conclusions of the Enquiry Officer in this regard are not in dispute, the disproportionality of punishment under the circumstances stated by the Labour Court cannot be seriously in dispute and disengagement from service adversely effecting the livelihood and avocation of the writ petitioner was rightly considered by the Labour Court to be unjustified. The respondents 1 and 2 did not also challenge the direction given by the Labour Court for reinstatement of the writ petitioner on the same terms and conditions in the same post and the only request of the writ petitioner herein as of now is that even if he were not awarded the back wages for the period of absence from duty till the reinstatement as per the award of the Labour Court, refusing to consider his past service, would be unjust and inequitable under the circumstances. The writ petitioner was not alleged to have been involved in any other alleged act of misconduct prior to the event in question and even the act in question was not a positive instance of misconduct with the writ petitioner contending that he had only forgotten the tickets kept with him for payment of dues to the passengers without any mala fide or questionable intention. The explanation need not be disbelieved and rejected outright and if so, interests of justice would require that he should not be denied the benefit of the service he had already rendered to the respondent corporation prior to the event or during the period of his disengagement from services till the reinstatement as per the impugned award. The relief has to be, therefore, granted, accordingly, to the writ petitioner. 8. Therefore, the writ petitioner must be deemed to be continuing in service even during the period of his disengagement from service due to the incident till the date of his reinstatement as per the impugned award, for all purposes except for claiming any wages for that period and the impugned award is modified accordingly and the Writ Petition is allowed, accordingly, to that extent without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25th November, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.8640 of 2001 Date: 25th November, 2010 KL