IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22887 of 1999 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Depot Manager, Barkatpura Bus Depot, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri M.R.Krishna, S/o. M.S.Rao, H.No.12-10-398/A, Sheetapal Mandi, Secunderabad. .....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 more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in I.D.No.46 of 1997 dt:9.11.98 published in G.O.Rt.No.2293 dt:23.12.1998 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22887 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, through its Depot Manager, Barkatpura Depot, Hyderabad, questioning the validity of the Award passed by Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, dated 9th November 1998, passed in I.D.No.46 of 1997. 2. The respondent herein was appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation on 25th March 1985 on daily wage basis, and his services were regularized with eﬀect from 25th September 1985. On 08.07.1996, while the respondent was conducting the bus bearing No.3816 on route No.135 from Koti to Erramanzil in Hyderabad, a surprise check was made by the inspecting oﬃcials at Stage No.7 at 14.35 hours. During such inspection, they have noticed certain cash and ticket irregularities. At the time of inspection, the checking oﬃcials have recorded the statements of passengers and also the statement of the respondent- Conductor. The checking oﬃcials noted down the irregularities detected by them vide charge sheet No.0888656, and the same was furnished to the respondent. At the time of inspection, the respondent- Conductor has given his spot explanation and requested for excuse. However, in view of the irregularities committed by the respondent, the petitioner-Corporation has initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued charge sheet dated 16.07.1996 alongwith enclosures. The charge sheet issued to the respondent contained the following charges : “1. for having collected Rs.2/- each from two passengers who boarded your bus at Koti and bound for Erramanzil Colony, ex-stage 3 to 7 and issued ticket Nos.524/506, 564 and 565 of Rs.2/- denomination which were already accounted at stage No.6 in the previous trip i.e. 12.55 hours on 8-07-96, and the said tickets were conﬁscated by the checking oﬃcials, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”. 2. for having issued ticket Nos.592/181042 and 592/181033 of Rs.1.75 ps. denomination to the two passengers who boarded the bus at Nampally and bound for Erramanzil Colony (Alighting) ex-stage, 4 to 7, which were punched on stage No.7 and accounted at stage No.5 on 8-7-1996, and the said tickets were conﬁscated by the checking oﬃcials, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”. 3. for having issued ticket Nos.437/631120 and 121 of Rs.1.50 ps. denomination to two passengers who boarded the bus at Lakdikapool and alighting at Erramanzil Colony, Ex-stages 5 to 7, and the same tickets were accounted at stage No.5 on 8-7- 1996 and the said tickets were conﬁscated by the checking oﬃcials, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg., 1963. 4. for having closed the Statistical Return in advance i.e. stage No.6 (Z.P.Oﬃce) in down trip, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Reg., 1963.” 3. For the aforesaid charges, respondent has ﬁled his explanation. Dissatisﬁed with the said explanation, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing the inquiry oﬃcer. The inquiry oﬃcer, after conducting the inquiry, submitted the report, holding that respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Based on the same, the disciplinary authority has passed the order of removal, dated 23rd December 1996. As against the order of removal, the respondent- Conductor carried the matter in appeal before the departmental appellate authority, which was rejected vide proceedings dated 24th December 1997. His review petition was also rejected by the reviewing authority vide proceedings dated 28th May 1997. 4. Questioning the said orders of termination, as conﬁrmed by the appellate and revenue authorities, the respondent has ﬁled an application before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 5. Before the Industrial Tribunal, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the workman, but however, on behalf of the management, documentary evidence in Exs.M-1 to M-20 were marked. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry conducted in the departmental proceedings, but however, by going into merits of the matter, recorded a ﬁnding to the eﬀect that though there was a mistake on the part of the respondent- Conductor in not properly punching the tickets, but however, there was no malaﬁde intention in doing so. Finding that it is a case of clear inadvertence, it recorded a ﬁnding that on account of such a minor mistake, the order of removal is distinctly disproportionate, and therefore, it modiﬁed the punishment to the eﬀect that the workman shall be awarded with cut of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative eﬀect, and ordered for his reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits. 6. In this writ petition, it is contended by Sri K.Madhava Reddy, appearing for the petitioner- Corporation that the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and are contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted by him that no additional material was produced by the respondent-Conductor before the Tribunal, to come to a diﬀerent conclusion than the conclusion arrived at by the authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v. Management of M/s.Usha Breco Ltd.[1] 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in the case on hand, from the explanation oﬀered by the respondent, it is clear that there was a mistake in punching of tickets, but however, there was no intention at all for misappropriation of the amount collected on account of fare from the passengers. It is submitted that though the inquiry authority has recorded a ﬁnding to the eﬀect that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved, inspite of the same, it is always open for the Tribunal to peruse the evidence on record and come to a diﬀerent conclusion. It is submitted that having regard to the nature of charges framed against the respondent, there is no monetary loss caused to the petitioner-Corporation, and in that view of the matter, the Industrial Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, has reduced the punishment from removal from service to that of stoppage of one increment. As such, it is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of M.Narayana v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur[2], and also on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhiknath[3]. 8. Before adverting to the said arguments of both the learned counsel, it is to be noted that in this case, Charge No.1 levelled against the respondent-Conductor is that while he was conducting the bus from Koti to Erramanzil on 08.07.1996, he has collected Rs.2/- from each passenger who boarded the bus at Koti and bound to Erramanzil at stages 3 to 7 and issued ticket Nos.524/506, 564 and 565 of Rs.2/- denomination, but the said tickets were already accounted for at Stage No.6 in the previous trip at 12.55 hours. Precisely, the eﬀect of the charge is that the respondent has collected fare from the passengers and issued to them, the used tickets, which were already accounted for at Stage No.6 in the previous trip at 12.55 hours. The ticket and cash irregularities were noticed during the check, which was exercised at 14.35 hours at Stage No.7. In Ex.M-6, which is the spot explanation given by the respondent with reference to the said charge, he has not disputed the issuance of those tickets, but it is his case that they were wrongly mentioned in the statistical return in the previous trip, and as such, it is a bonaﬁde mistake and there was no malaﬁde intention on his part. 9. Having regard to the nature of Charge No.1, the explanation oﬀered by the respondent is hardly believable. From the said charge, and the explanation oﬀered by the respondent, there is clear dishonest intention on the part of the respondent in issuing the tickets, which were already accounted for in the previous trip at Stage No.6. In that view of the matter, while it is open for the Tribunal to go into any other material evidence produced by the parties before it during the inquiry, but in the instant case, in the absence of any further evidence from the side of the workman, recording such a ﬁnding that there was no malaﬁde intention on the part of the respondent, appears to be without any basis. 10. Even with regard to charge Nos.2 and 3 also, the explanation of the respondent-Conductor that punching was wrongly done with reference to the tickets covered under the said charges, was accepted by the Tribunal without there being any material on record. The said ﬁnding recorded by the Tribunal runs contrary to the evidence recorded in the disciplinary proceedings and also the documentary evidence, which is marked under Exs.M-1 to M-20. There is absolutely no reason to discard the documentary evidence under Ex.M-2, which are the statements of passengers, and Ex.M-3, the spot explanation of the respondent, and the proceedings of the inquiry oﬃcer under Ex.M-15. It is also to be noted that in the departmental proceedings, the checking oﬃcials, who recorded the statements of the passengers, were examined and their statements were also recorded. Even the explanation of the respondent with reference to Charge No.4 that he has closed the statistical return in advance at Stage No.6 itself indicates the malaﬁde intention of the respondent. 11. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v. Management of M/s.Usha Breco Ltd. (supra 1), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in cases where the material brought on record by the inquiry officer fall for re-appreciation by the Labour Court, it should be slow to interfere therewith. It is further held in the above said judgment that the Labour Court shall not interfere with the findings of the inquiry oﬃcer only because it is lawful to do so, and it should not take recourse to it only because another view is possible. 12. In that view of the matter, the ﬁnding of the Tribunal that it is a clear case of inadvertence without any malaﬁde intention, does not appear to be in consonance with the evidence on record. 13. In the judgment of this Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent-Conductor in the case of M.Narayana v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (supra 2), it was a case of punishment of removal from service, imposed by the disciplinary authority and conﬁrmed by the Labour Court, was set aside by this Court, on the ground that the ﬁnding was erroneous, without any foundation on the charge. Directions were issued for appointing the workman as a fresh appointee. From the above said judgment, it is to be noted that, whether the charge was proved or not, is a matter to be examined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, and the evidence available on record. As such, this judgment would not render any assistance to the case of the respondent. 14. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent is rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhiknath (supra 3). This is a case where the disciplinary authority has diﬀered with the ﬁnding of the inquiry authority and imposed the punishment. Before the Labour Court, both the parties consented to decide the case on the basis of evidence, and the Labour Court has declared that the termination order is illegal, and therefore, it ordered for reinstatement of the workman. This judgment also would not render any assistance to the respondent, as in the present case, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was let in by the respondent-Conductor before the Tribunal, so that it can come to a diﬀerent conclusion than the ﬁndings arrived at by the disciplinary authority. Even the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner-Corporation, was not considered by the Tribunal before taking a diﬀerent view than the view taken by the disciplinary authority, based on the report of the inquiry officer. 15. In that view of the matter, the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal that the cash and ticket irregularities noticed at the time of inspection at 14.35 hours on 08.07.1996, is only on account of mere inadvertence, without any malafide intention, cannot be maintained. 16. However, it is to be noted that the respondent- Conductor was initially appointed in 1985 and though he was removed by the order of disciplinary authority, it is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that consequent to the award passed by the Labour Court, he was already reinstated into service and he was also paid 50% of back wages in view of the interim orders passed by this Court. Further, the Tribunal went wrong by awarding full backwages with attendant beneﬁts, while imposing the punishment on the respondent. 17. In view of the ﬁndings referred above, it is necessary to consider whether the punishment imposed by the Tribunal below is proportionate having regard to gravity of the charges levelled. The Tribunal has exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Act and passed the Award, reducing the punishment. In normal course, in view of the ﬁndings recorded by this Court, the matter has to be reconsidered by the Tribunal, but taking into account the fact that the respondent was initially appointed in the year 1985 and as this writ petition is pending before this Court for nine long years, I deem it appropriate to modify the punishment imposed by the Tribunal to the following effect : (i) the reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service is confirmed. (ii) cut of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative eﬀect, is also conﬁrmed as ordered by the Tribunal. (iii) Respondent is entitled to 50% of back wages only. (iv) He is not entitled for any attendant benefits. 18. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th August 2008 ajr To The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Barkatpura Bus Depot, Hyderabad. [1] 2008 (5) SCJ 439 [2] 1999 (5) ALD 574 [3] 2005 SCC (L&S) 273