THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.20959 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner was working as conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Managur in Khammam District. On 09.09.1996 there was check in the bus in which the petitioner was working as conductor and it was found that there were five passengers without holding tickets. Therefore, concluding that the petitioner collected fare from those five passengers and did not issue tickets and misappropriated the said amount of fare, management of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation launched disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for misconduct. In the disciplinary enquiry the writ petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and he was removed from service. Questioning the said removal, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No.48 of 1997. After enquiry, the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal namely the first respondent passed impugned award dated 19.09.2000 setting aside order of removal dated 09.12.1996 passed by the Corporation and directing that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service as Conductor as fresh recruit only. It was further ordered therein that after reinstatement, two increments of the petitioner shall be stopped with cumulative effect. Questioning the said award, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari in respect thereof. The first respondent in the impugned award held that misconduct by way of misappropriation of fare relating to five passengers was not proved and that it is only a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner in not issuing tickets to five passengers. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the passengers gave spot explanation to the effect that group of six persons boarded the bus and one of them purchased six tickets and the said person who was possessing the tickets got down at the next stage without handing over five tickets to 5 persons who continued to travel in the bus. The management as well as first respondent did not place reliance on the said version. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner during enquiry as one Komaram Ram Babu who was brought by the petitioner to be examined as his witness in the domestic enquiry was not permitted to be examined by the enquiry officer. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that in Ex.M11 explanation given by the petitioner to final show cause notice, the petitioner took the said ground. The said ground was not substantiated before the first respondent during enquiry of the Industrial Dispute by examining either Komaram Rambabu or by placing any document to the effect that the petitioner requested the domestic Enquiry Officer in writing to examine the said Komaram Rambabu and his request was rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that no reasonable opportunity was given to him during the domestic enquiry, is without any factual basis or foundation. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the first respondent while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner as conductor, erroneously directed that it should be as fresh recruit. It is further contended that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is also erroneous and not permissible in law. The petitioner was removed from service on 09.12.1996. The Labour Court passed the award on 19.09.2000. The said award was notified by G.O.Rt.No.2406 dated 28.11.2000 and it was published in the official gazette on 10.01.2001. Thus for more than four years the petitioner was out of service. Reinstatement was ordered as fresh recruit indicating that it is without back wages and without continuity in service. Thus the petitioner has lost his wages or salary for nearly 50 months. In such a situation, if again stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is ordered, this Court is of the opinion that it amounts to awarding dual punishment, which is impermissible in law. Therefore, I propose to remove the direction of stoppage of two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Placing reliance on MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED vs RAMLAL[1] of the Supreme Court it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that reinstatement presupposes continuity in service of the petitioner. The Supreme Court, while quoting an earlier decision in WORKMEN vs BHARAT COKING COAL LTD[2] observed as follows: “An award of reinstatement postulates continuity of service, and the same could be enforced against the Company in which the undertakings vested in terms of the provisions of a parliamentary Act. The said decision, therefore, cannot be said to have any application in the facts of the present case.” There can be no dispute of the fact that if it is a case of reinstatement simplicitor, it follows that the person reinstated is entitled for not only continuity in service but also back wages. But in the case on hand, the petitioner was not reinstated simplicitor without any further clauses or clogs. The Labour Court categorically held that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as a fresh recruit. It follows that the said reinstatement will not carry either continuity in service or back wages. Since the Labour Court found that the petitioner is guilty of negligence though not guilty of misconduct by way of misappropriation of fare, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not liable to be removed from service by way of imposing a fatal punishment on him, and for that reason the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement as fresh recruit indicating that he is not entitled for any back wages or continuity in service. It has to be clarified herein that since the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service after removing punishment of removal, he is entitled to have all increments which he got in his service prior to his removal. His reinstatement into service will be not as fresh recruit but with the benefits to which he was entitled to prior to his removal. The petitioner is not entitled only to back wages and continuity of service. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of without costs as indicated above and setting aside the second punishment regarding stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 29.11.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.20959 of 2001 Dt.29.11.2010 [1] (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 638 [2] (1978) 2 SCC 175