IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22894 of 1999 Between: Ch.Srihari, S/o Kotaiah, Mancherial Depot, Mancherial, Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep its Secretary, Labour Employment & Training (LAB.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chairman cum persiding Officer, Industrial-Cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Macherial, Adilabad District .....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 a Writ, order or direction, one preferably in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the Records pertaining to the Award dt 28-11-1994 passed in Industrial Dispute No.257/1992 on the ﬁle of the Chairman-cum- presiding Oﬃcer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar district as published by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Rt.No.723 Labour, Employment & Training (LAB.I) Department dt 31-3-1995 and set aside the same in so far as it denied continuity of the petitioner's previous service and backwages and attendant beneﬁts and in so far as it directed payment of only 75% of his salary for a period of 1 year after his reinstatement. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22894 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘APSRTC’), Mancherial Depot in Adilabad District, aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani, dated 28th November 1994, passed in I.D.No.257 of 1992. By the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has ordered for appointment of the petitioner as a fresh Conductor, and with a further condition that he is entitled for salary only to the extent of 75% of his gross total emoluments, for a period of one year after reinstatement. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in APSRTC on 31st December 1987 and was attached to Mancherial Depot in Adilabad District. On 21.06.1991, while he was conducting the bus on the route from Mancherial to Chennur, the checking oﬃcials made an inspection at stage No.5. On the ground that during such inspection, they have noticed cash and ticket irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. In the charge sheet dated 07.11.1991, two charges were framed against the petitioner, which read as under : “Charge No. 1: For having re-issued tickets bearing Nos.172/362100 and of Rs.1.75 den. And 173/360593, 594, 596, 598 and 599 of Rs.1.75 den. even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 from each 7 (seven) individual passengers at their boarding point itself having boarded your bus at Srirampur colony and found alighting at Jaipur Ex-stages 3 to 5. The above said tickets were already issued at stage No.1 i.e. Mancherial in the same trip. Hence made TIT bearing Nos.172/3626105 to 111 of Rs.1.75 den. which constitutes misconduct under regulation 28 (VI) (a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Charge No.2 : For having failed to close the S.R. against stage No.5 hence marked ‘x’ by the T.T.Is.” 3. When the petitioner has denied the charges levelled against him, a domestic inquiry was ordered by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer, who has submitted his report, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the inquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 17th March 1992. The said removal order was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, by way of an application ﬁled under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), in I.D.No.257 of 1992. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced, but however, documentary evidence under Ex.W-1 was marked on behalf of the workman, while Exs.M-1 to M-18 were marked on behalf of the management. The Tribunal, on examining the material in the inquiry proceedings and also the documentary evidence ﬁled before it, has recorded a ﬁnding that the inquiry conducted in the domestic inquiry proceedings, was valid. Further, while examining the quantum of punishment vis-à-vis the gravity of charges, the Tribunal ordered for appointment of the petitioner as a fresh Conductor. While making such an order, it further imposed a condition that the petitioner is entitled to salary of only 75% of his gross emoluments, for a period of one year after reinstatement. 4. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that though there was no valid material in support of the charges framed against the petitioner, the Tribunal upheld the report submitted by the inquiry oﬃcer in the domestic inquiry proceedings. It is submitted that asmuch as no passenger was examined in the inquiry proceedings, the charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be held proved. Further, it is submitted that the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that in any event, having ordered for lesser punishment than the punishment imposed by the competent authority while exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Act, the Tribunal ought not have imposed any further condition for payment of salary of 75% only. It is submitted that imposing such further condition is arbitrary and illegal. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that in the domestic inquiry proceedings, the inspecting oﬃcials were examined, and the statements recorded by them from the passengers, were also marked. It is submitted that merely because the passengers as such were not examined in the domestic inquiry, by itself, is not fatal to the proceedings. Further, it is submitted that the inquiry report was furnished along with the show cause notice of removal, dated 9th March 1992, and while reducing the punishment, it is always open for the Tribunal to impose any conditions for payment of salary at the rate of 75% after reinstatement. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 6. From the various ﬁndings recorded in the domestic inquiry proceedings, and in the award passed by the Tribunal, it is clear in this case that when the inspection was made, the inspecting oﬃcials have found that seven passengers were issued the used tickets. It was noticed that some of the passengers in the bus were issued tickets with Stage No.1 only upto Stage No.3, and the same tickets were re-issued for the passengers travelling beyond stage No.3. Asmuch as the inspection was done at Stage No.5, it was evident from the tickets possessed by the passengers at Stage No.5. In the preliminary inquiry, statements were recorded from the passengers, and even in the domestic inquiry proceedings, the said statements were ﬁled apart from examining the travelling inspectors. In the domestic inquiry proceedings, the statements of the passengers were marked as Exs.M-3 and M-4. To prove the recording of those statements, inspectors were also examined. Copy of the entire material, which is placed in the domestic inquiry proceedings, was also placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, having gone into the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a ﬁnding that charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner i.e. re-issuing of tickets to seven passengers, was proved. Merely because the passengers as such were not examined in the domestic inquiry proceedings, by itself, will not vitiate the inquiry. A perusal of the ﬁle produced by the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC shows that along with the show cause notice dated 9th March 1992, the respondents have sent the entire material, including the ﬁndings recorded by the inquiry officer. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not supplied with the inquiry report, as submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner. But however, the Tribunal, inspite of the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, but taking into account his past service, and also the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner vis-a-vis the quantum of punishment, further examined the punishment and recorded a ﬁnding to the eﬀect that it will be just and proper to order appointment of the petitioner as a fresh Conductor. But curiously, the Tribunal further imposed a condition of payment of only 75% of salary for a period of one year after reinstatement. Though, while exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Act there is power conferred on the Tribunal in a given case to impose lesser punishment than the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority in the disciplinary proceedings, but in the instant case, the Tribunal, having ordered for fresh appointment of the petitioner, has imposed further condition of payment of salary of only 75%. Asmuch as the petitioner was originally appointed on 31.12.1987, and by the time the award was passed by the Tribunal he had put-in nearly seven years of service, in that view of the matter, awarding 75% of salary for a period of one year after reinstatement, appears to be arbitrary. 7. In normal course, imposition of such punishment is a matter to be reconsidered by the Tribunal, but asmuch as the petitioner was already reinstated into service pursuant to the award of the Tribunal in 1996 itself, and this matter is pending consideration of this Court for the last about nine years, in order to put a quietus to the litigation, I deem it appropriate to set aside that part of the award and declare that the petitioner is entitled for full salary after his reinstatement, as applicable to the fresh appointees during the relevant point of time. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, holding that the condition imposed in the Award for payment of 75% of salary for one year after reinstatement of the petitioner, as illegal, and I declare that the petitioner is entitled for full salary for the said period also, and he is entitled for payment of diﬀerential salary. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th August 2008 ajr To 1. The Secretary, Labour Employment & Training (LAB.I) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Chairman cum persiding Officer, Industrial-Cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District 3. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Macherial, Adilabad District