THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2254 of 2005 Dated: 07.06.2010 Between: J.K.B. Nawaz. .. Petitioner. And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Adoni Depot, Adoni, Kurnool District And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award dated 01.12.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.117 of 2001. Petitioner is the workman and respondents are the management. It appears, the petitioner, who was working as conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) at Adhoni Depot, was found to have committed certain cash and ticket irregularities, while conducting the bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 5643 on the route Kurnool to Adoni on 19.07.2000 at stage No.6. Thereupon, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: 1) For having reissued 2 tickets bearing No.912/133696 of Rs.10/- denm., E.1 and another ticket No.168/653708 of Rs.6/- denm., E.1 to a batch of two passengers towards their journey from Kurnool to Nagalapuram ex- stages 7 to 6 which were actually issued and accounted the sale of said tickets at stage No.1 in 13-00 hrs., uptrip, in your S.R.No.A6/1686666, dt 19.7.2000 maintained by you which constitutes misconduct in terms of clause (xxiii) of Regulation 28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2) For having closed the tray Nos. of all denm., against the stage No.6 in 22-00 hrs., down trip in your S.R. No.A6/1686666 dt. 19.7.2000 without completion of correct issue of tickets to the passengers referred in charge No.1 which constitutes misconduct in terms of clause (xxxiii) of Regulation 28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner, ultimately, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 30.01.2001 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Kurnool, who dismissed the appeal by orders dated 06.04.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.D.No.117 of 2001, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’), before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Anantapur. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that the management and the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the evidence given by the passenger at the time of enquiry that he purchased the tickets, but due to some mistake he has shown the tickets which he had purchased while traveling in the previous journey. It was the case of the management that the plea of the workman to the effect that as the passenger failed to purchase the tickets in the present journey, the passenger produced the tickets purchased in the previous journey so as to escape from penalty, cannot be accepted, that the Enquiry Officer and the management have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and that when once it is proved that the workman has re-issued the tickets which were already accounted in previous journey, it is clear that he had defrauded the revenues of the Corporation and, therefore, the punishment of removal is proportionate to that of the proved misconduct. Before the Labour Court, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side. The Labour Court, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved and that in case of proved defrauding of revenues of the Corporation, the punishment of removal is justified and no leniency can be shown, and accordingly, dismissed the I.D. by impugned award dated 01.12.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Sri R. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that since the allegation of the petitioner that he re-issued two tickets of Rs.10/- and Rs.6/- denominations which were already issued and accounted in the S.R. in up trip, is trivial in nature, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation supported the award passed by the Labour Court. He submits that the past conduct of the workman is not good, as he was once removed from service, but later reinstated as per the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.43 of 1989, and his increments differed on six occasions. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the impugned award and other material placed on record. The sum and substance of the charges framed against the workman is that he re-issued two tickets, which were already issued and accounted in the S.R. in up trip, to a batch of two passengers towards their journey from Kurnool to Nagalapuram ex.stages 7 to 6, having collected the requisite fares from them, and closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations, without issuing correct tickets to the passengers. When the workman had collected fare from passengers, he was supposed to issue correct tickets to them immediately, but he failed to do so. The past conduct of the workman is not good. The charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and were proved beyond any reasonable doubt and, therefore, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in detail and also the material placed before it, the Labour Court confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, by the impugned award dated 01.12.2003 passed in I.D.No.117 of 2001. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought by him and the writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 07.06.2010 v v