IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7612 of 2000 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Narsampet depot, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 B.Jaggaiah S/o.Bikshaiah, Garedapalli, Punnakal Post (via) Carla Kamepally Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Warangal. .....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 any appropriate writ, direction or order particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the award in I.D.No.249/1995 of the Indl.Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Warangal dated 15.12.1999 and published on 17.2.2000 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Counsel for the Petitioner :SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, through its Depot Manager, Narsampet Depot in Warangal District, challenging the validity of the award, dated 15th December 1999, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.249 of 1995. 2. The 1st respondent is a Conductor working in the petitioner-Corporation. On 29.06.1994, while he was conducting the service bus bearing No.2156 on the route from Narsampet to Warangal, a check was exercised at stage No.1/2, Maheswaram, and the checking officials have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. With reference to the said irregularities committed by the 1st respondent, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge sheet, dated 15.07.1994 was issued to him, by framing the following five charges : “1. For having violated the rule ‘issue and start’ as stage No.1 i.e. Narsampet, while performing service on the route Narsampet – Warangal on 29.6.1994 with the Veh.No.2156 which amounts to mis-conduct in terms of Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of 3 passengers, inspite of collecting the requisite fare at Rs.1.50 ps each at their boarding place itself, who boarded the bus at Narsampet and bound for Gurukulam, ex.stages 1 to 2 which amounts to misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to four passengers (2+1+1) who boarded the bus at Narsampet and bound for Girnibai, ex.stages 1 to ¾, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger, who boarded the bus at Narsampet and bound for Matchapur, ex.stages 1 to 4/5 which amounts to misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 5. For having failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger, who boarded the bus at Narsampet and bound for Kommala, ex.stages 1 to 4, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” 3. As the petitioner has denied the abovesaid charges in his explanation, a departmental inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer has submitted his report, by recording a finding that all the charges levelled against the 1st respondent were proved. Based on the said findings of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has passed orders of removal, dated 28th December 1994, against the 1st respondent. Though the matter was carried in appeal, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal, by his orders dated 21st Mach 1995. Thereafter, questioning the order of removal as confirmed by the appellate authority, the 1st respondent/workman has raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.249 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Tribunal, no evidence was let in either oral or documentary, on behalf of the parties. Inspite of the same, the Tribunal, by reappreciating the evidence recorded by the inquiry officer, has recorded a finding to the effect that Charge No.2 is proved only to the extent of irregularity committed by the petitioner, and the same will not amount to misconduct. With regard to other charges i.e. Charge Nos.1, 3 to 5, the Tribunal has held that the 1st respondent/workman has failed to collect fare and issue tickets to certain passengers, for the reasons beyond his control, and therefore, it has ordered for reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service with backwages, continuity of service and all other benefits. At the same time, it has also substituted the punishment of removal with that of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Corporation. Inspite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent/workman. 5. It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Corporation that though on appreciation of evidence on record, the inquiry officer has found that all the charges are held proved, the Tribunal, without recording valid reasons, has interfered with the said findings recorded by the inquiry officer. It is further submitted that the lapses on the part of 1st respondent which were noticed during the check, though clearly amount to misconduct as per the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, framed under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, inspite of the same, the Tribunal has granted the relief, by observing that the said conduct of the 1st respondent would amount to only irregularity and not misconduct. 6. I have perused the copy of the award passed by the Tribunal. From the charges as extracted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, so far as 2nd charge is concerned, it is specifically alleged that the 1st respondent has failed to issue tickets to a batch of three passengers inspite of collecting requisite fare of Rs.1.50 ps at the boarding place itself, who boarded the bus at Narsampet and bound for Gurukulam, ex-stages 1 to 2. With reference to the said charge, though the inquiry officer, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the 1st respondent/employee has committed misconduct, even then, the Tribunal has interfered with the said findings on the ground that he failed to issue tickets to three passengers due to heavy rush in the bus. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. When the charge itself is that the 1st respondent has collected the fare at the stage of boarding from three passengers, but, he failed to issue tickets, the Tribunal has grossly erred in recording a finding that same is only an irregularity, but not mis-conduct, as the 1st respondent/workman has not issued tickets due to heavy rush of passengers. It is not a case where the delinquent/employee has not issued tickets by not collecting the fare, so far as 2nd charge is concerned. As he failed to issue tickets after collecting the fare, it is a clear attempt on the part of the employee to misappropriate the revenue of the Corporation by committing misconduct. The Tribunal, in the absence of any material on record, has merely proceeded on assumptions. Even with reference to charge Nos.3, 4 and 5, which will indicate that there is heavy loss on account of these charges, the Tribunal has interfered only on the ground that due to heavy rush, for the reasons beyond his control, the 1st respondent could not issue tickets. Even the said finding of the Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. When there were instructions and Circulars, prescribing the ticket issuing points, merely on the ground that due to heavy rush in the bus, the 1st respondent could not issue tickets, the finding recorded by the inquiry officer could not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. Such a perverse finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on no evidence. At the same time, it is stated that pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, the 1st respondent was already reinstated in the year 2000, and since then, he is continuously working for the last about more than nine years. In this case, it is also to be noticed that the Tribunal, while awarding lesser punishment of stoppage of three increments by interfering with the findings of the inquiry officer, has also granted full backwages. In this connection, it is appropriate to refer to an authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K.Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P.Agrawal[1], wherein, the Supreme Court has observed that awarding backwages for the period for which the delinquent/employee is out of service, would amount to allowing premium on the misconduct committed by the employee. 7. Looking at the fact that the 1st respondent was reinstated pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the interests of justice would be met if the award of the Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal to the extent of awarding backwages is set aside, while the award to the extent of reinstatement with continuity of service, is confirmed. The punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, as ordered by the Tribunal, is also confirmed. 8. The writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the award, to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th February 2009. ajr [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433