IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21920 of 1999 Between: S. Sadanandam S/o Late S. Sambaiah Mehdipatnam Depot, resident of H.No. 8-3-231/61/A, Sri Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Depot Manager, Ranigunj - 1 depot, Secunderabad (A.P) .....RESPONDENT 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 calling for records relating to the award in I.D.No. 56/97 of the Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court at Hyderabad, dt. 26-11-98, published in G.O.Rt.No.2379, dt. 31-12-98 and to declare the said award as illegal, arbitrary, vitiated by errors apparent on the face of record and set-aside, the same in so far as the same against the petitioner by issuing a writ of Certiorari. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JSESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR LABOUR & SRI K. MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21920 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the conductor of the AP State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, dated 26.11.1998 in I.D.No.56 of 1997 to the extent of not awarding backwages while ordering reintatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Necessary facts in brief are as under: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Corporation on 9.1.1994. On 14.7.1996, while he was conducting the bus on route No.49-P from Nampally Station to Secunderabad Station, the checking oﬃcials exercised a cheque at ticket issuing point at stage No.7/6 viz., Khairatabad and found certain cash and ticket irregularities, based on which, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The following charges were framed against the petitioner. 1. “For having failed to account the ticket numbers 576/224283 to 576/224287 of Rs.1,75 ps., denomination E.5 tickets issued to the passengers in the S.R., who have boarded the bus at Nampally and bound for Greenlands ex- stages 8 to 5” which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. “For having failed to close the S.R., upto stage No.7 i.e., you have closed the S.R., in Rs.1-75 ps., denomination column as 283 as against 288” which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. “For having failed to punch the ﬁve (5) tickets of Rs.1-75 p.s., denominations properly i.e., you have punched the tickets on stage No.6 instead of stage No.8” which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. “For having punched on stage No.6 instead of stage No.8 duly extending the validity of tickets by 2 stages and not accounting in S.R.,” which constitutes irregular and misconduct under Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 5. “For having instigated the passengers towards the checking oﬃcials and obstructed them to perform their legitimate duties” which constitutes misconduct under regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner had ﬁled his explanation to the charge memo and the enquiry oﬃcer after conducting a necessary domestic enquiry, prepared a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of charge Nos.1 to 3 & 4 only. However, with regard to charge No.5, it is found as not proved. Based on the proved misconduct, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal vide order, dated 6.5.1997. The petitioner questioned the said order of removal by way of an application under section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.56 of 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Industrial Tribunal while considering charges No.1 and 2 together recorded a ﬁnding that the petitioner violated Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations. Similarly, while considering charges Nos.3 & 4 together, the Tribunal recorded a ﬁnding that the petitioner had punched ﬁve tickets at stage No.6 instead of stage No.8. The Tribunal also held that charge No.5 has not been proved. But, however, the Tribunal while considering the quantum of punishment, purportedly in exercise of power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner without backwages, but with continuity of service and all attendant beneﬁts. The Tribunal further ordered the period from the date of removal i.e., from 6.5.1997 to the date of publication of the award will be treated as a period of suspension without pay and allowances. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though there was an explanation and the same was available on record, the Tribunal has misread the evidence and recorded the ﬁndings holding that charges No.1,2,3 & 4 framed against the petitioner are concerned, and therefore, in any event, the Tribunal ought to have ordered for payment of backwages. Insofar as charge No.1 is concerned, it is to be noticed that the petitioner failed to account ﬁve tickets of Rs.1.75 ps, denominations issued to the passengers. But, however, he did not account the same in the S.R. With regard to the above said charges No.1 and 2, the Tribunal also categorically recorded a ﬁnding that the petitioner, who closed the SR at stage No.7, should have accounted those ﬁve tickets also. In that view of the matter, rejecting the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner, it was held that the petitioner has committed misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 28 (xxxii) of the Regulations. Insofar as Charges No.3 & 4 are concerned, it is clear that the petitioner punched ﬁve tickets at stage No.6 instead of stage No.8 and for this extent of variation by two stages, the explanation of the petitioner that it was due to jerking in the transit only, was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also having regard to the evidence on record clearly recorded a ﬁnding that the petitioner punched ﬁve tickets at stage No.6 instead of stage No.8. Though it is submitted by the learned Counsel that there was no allegation of misappropriation of any amount, but, however, the very object of not accounting the tickets in the SR by closing the same at stage No.7 gives some suspicion as to the motive of the petitioner. Though at the stage of inspection, there was no direct misappropriation, but, on the alleged misconduct, it cannot be ruled out as to the motive for such proved misconduct of the petitioner in any way. Charge Nos.1 to 4 are held proved even by the Tribunal. Insofar as the quantum of punishment is concerned, in exercise of power under Section 11A of the Act, the Tribunal ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the Tribunal either failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11 A or could not exercise its discretion in a judicious manner. The beneﬁcial provision viz., Section 11A of the Act, with regard to exemption of quantum of punishment, is rightly examined by the Tribunal and substituted the lesser punishment to that of the order of the removal. In that view of the matter, on re- appreciation of evidence, if a further view is possible, it is not open for this Court in this petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. I do not ﬁnd any merits, which would warrant interference and the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice R. Subhash Reddy Dated: 10.9.2008 Nn. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21920 OF 1999 10.9.2008