THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16380 OF 2000 DATED 29TH AUGUST, 2011 BETWEEN Ch.Janaiah …Petitioner And Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Complex, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16380 OF 2000 ORDER: The unsuccessful petitioner in I.D.No.156 of 1996 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, filed this writ petition aggrieved by the NIL Award dated 28.04.2000 passed therein. The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport (APSRTC) in the year 1989. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of certain cash and ticket irregularities allegedly committed by him while conducting the service from Yadagirigutta to Up-Hills on 28.02.1994. The charges were as follows: “1. For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’. 2. For having collected Rs.1.50 petitioner Sangham. Each (total Rs.4.50 ps. from a batch of three (3) passengers and issued tickets bearing No.650/020489, 491 and 492 (un-serial tickets) of Rs.1.50 denomination, which were already accounted at earlier trips, vide SR.No.A2/1238711 i.e. 8.00 hours trip from YGT to Up-Hills ex-stages 11 to 12. The S.R.No.A2/1238711, dated 28.2.94 has been confiscated and issued a new SR.No.A/940782, dt.28.2.94 by HES/SRPT in order to continue the service. The above mentioned tickets were re-issued to the passengers while continuing the trip of 9.00 hours from YGT to Up-Hills, ex-stages 13 to 14. The re-issued tickets have been confiscated, which constitute misconduct under Reg.No.28 (xxiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having closed all the denominations in the SR upto stage No.14 without completing the ticket issues, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. No.28(xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” Upon due enquiry, he was removed from service by order dated 20.09.1994 which stood confirmed in appeal by order 12.07.1995 and in review by order dated 23.02.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was taken on file by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, as I.D.No.156 of 1996. The Labour Court, having recorded a finding that the petitioner did not dispute the validity of the domestic enquiry, examined the material on record. Such examination reflected that the petitioner had himself admitted in his spot explanation that he had issued used tickets to three passengers. No doubt, the passenger D.Mallesh, who in his spot explanation spoke against the petitioner, changed his version during the enquiry by stating that he had picked up the used tickets from the floor of the bus. However, the Labour Court found that the signatures of D.Mallesh on the spot explanation did not tally with those affixed in the statement during the enquiry. This created any amount of doubt as to the identity of this witness. The Labour Court therefore rightly eschewed this evidence from consideration. As the charge was a serious one involving misappropriation, the Labour Court refused to extend the beneficial doctrine of proportionality to the petitioner and accordingly confirmed the punishment of removal from service visited upon him by the APSRTC. In the light of the aforestated facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner, having been indicted of a serious charge involving misappropriation of the APSRTC’s revenue failed to adduce convincing evidence of his innocence. Contradictions in the evidence of the passenger were not established as the very identity of the person examined during the enquiry was suspect. In such circumstances, this Court cannot ignore the observations of the Supreme Court in REGIONAL MANAGER, UPSRTC v. HOTI LAL[1]: “10. ……… If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. ………” The Award passed by the Labour Court therefore does not warrant interference, be it on facts or in law. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 29TH AUGUST, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] (2003) 3 SCC 605