Case: A.P.S.R.T.C Vs. G. Murali

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 30th June, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. It appears that the Respondent was working as a Conductor in the Appellant-Corporation. On 16th June, 1994 he was on duty as Conductor in Bus No. 1199. A surprise check was conducted by the TTI who found that certain passengers have not been issued tickets, even though the fare was collected by the Respondent. The statements of the passengers were recorded. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved and order of removal from service was passed by the disciplinary authority2. The matter was taken by way of industrial dispute being ID No. 189/95 and the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal vide order dated 30th December, 1999 had held that the charges 2 to 5 stand not proved for the simple reason that the statements of the passengers which were relied upon by the Appellant-Corporation was specifically denied by the Respondent and he had stated that he had issued all the tickets for which the fare was charged and the allegation that no ticket was issued is false. The Industrial Court had held that as the passengers were not produced in the enquiry, the statement recorded by the TTI from the passengers cannot be taken in evidence, as no opportunity was given to the Respondent to cross-examine. Consequently, the Industrial Court had held that charges 2 to 5 have not been proved. So far as the remaining charges 1 and 6 are concerned, it was held to be proved and therefore the Industrial Court reduced the penalty from removal of service to stoppage of three increments. The Appellant challenged the order by filing a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the same3. Feeling aggrieved, Writ Appeal was filed which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the impugned judgment. We find that the order of the Industrial Court exonerating the Respondent from charges 2 to 5 are on good grounds and do not call for any interference, as the passengers were not produced for cross-examination specifically when the Respondent had denied the charges of collecting fare and non-issuing of tickets.