A.R.M.Rao. vs Chairman Cumpresiding Officer

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner employee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the punishment of removal from service by respondent No.2/Competent Authority and confirmed by the Industrial Tribunal/respondent No.1 in I.D.No.70 of 2000 dt.23.07.2001 which was published in G.O.Rt.No.2065 dt.23.08.2001, as illegal and against the principles of natural justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had been employed as a Conductor of APSRTC, Koratla Bus Depot, Karimnagar District. He was on duty on 23.01.1999 on buss No.1645 enroute Korutla to Rajojipet, during the course of which, there was a check at Stage No.4 at about 12.30 hours. The checking staff detected cash irregularities in issuing of tickets to the passengers and thereupon a charge memo dt.23.01.1999 was issued. After departmental enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court challenging the findings given by the Competent Authority on facts and also challenging the proportionality of the punishment imposed on him. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his Application has been summarily dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (i) without application of mind; and (ii) without assigning any reasons and also, (iii) that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him by the Corporation. Thus, assailing the order of the Labour Court, this Writ Petition was filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, submitted that the main charge against the petitioner is that he had violated the rule of issue and start and further that he had issued improper and unconcerned tickets to the passengers, total value of which is Rs.10/- only. Though the petitioner has not raised any grounds before the Industrial Tribunal about any deficiencies in the enquiry, he raised some arguments before this Court. He submitted that the Labour Court has not considered or appreciated the explanation of the petitioner and that the enquiry report has been signed by Mr. A.K. Reddy, the other witness, though he was not examined by the enquiry officer. He therefore submitted that the Industrial Tribunal should have considered the validity of the departmental enquiry prior to examining the merits of the case and for failing to do so, the order of the Tribunal is vitiated. Further, on the merits of the case, he submitted that the petitioner was suffering from ill-health for 2 days, due to which he had applied for leave and subsequently since he continued to be sick, he wanted to extend the leave but he was not permitted to do so and in the same ill-health condition, he was conducting the bus and therefore few discrepancies have arisen. He submitted that the petitioner had given his explanation to the charge Memo after 7 days but the same was not considered by the authorities. He argued that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner should be reinstated into service with back wages and all other attendant benefits.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri Ravi Babu, submitted that the Corporation has filed its counter and has also stated that the petitioner has failed to give proper explanation for the discrepancies found during the course of the check and therefore, the management had no option but to remove the petitioner from service. As regards the discrepancies in the enquiry pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that the petitioner has not raised any such grounds either before the Industrial Tribunal or before this Court and therefore, the petitioner is precluded from raising such grounds at this stage. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the  decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L.Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and another (2018) 18 SCC 21.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the charges against the petitioner were as follows:

(1) For having violated the rule issue of Correct Tickets, and start the bus which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

(2) For having issued irrelevant tickets No.202/375847, 375849 of Rs.2.50 denomination and not pertaining to your S.R. to batch of two passengers who were found alighting at Kondapur, stage No.4 having boarded the bus at Medipally, stage 0.3/4 from whom you have collected Rs.5/- towards fare at the rate of Rs.2.50 per each at the boarded place but the above tickets were issued vide ticket tray No.212 and way bill No.98136 on 30.12.98 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

(3) For having issued irrelevant unpunched ticket No.208/377547 of Rs.2.50 not pertaining to your S.R. and ticket tray to a lady passenger who was found alighting at Kondapur, stage No.4 having boarded the bus at Medipally, stage No.3/4, from whom you have collected Rs.2.50 ps. towards fare at the boarding place, but the above ticket was issued to Sri B.Harichand, E.320925 vide tray No.132 and way bill No.99003 dt:5.1.99 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

(4) For having re-issued ticket No.417/925712 of R.3/- to a passenger who was found alighting at Kondapur, stage No.4 having boarded the bus at Medipally, stage No.3/4 from whom you have collected Rs.2.50 towards the fare at the boarding place but the above ticket was already issued at stage No.2 and accounted against stage No.3 in 12.00 hrs. Govindaram trip which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

(5) For having kept irrelevant tickets 117/774196 to 199, 208, 208/377548, 202/375809 to 811, 202/375819 to 823, 202/375825 & 826, 202/375837 to 840 of Rs.2.50 denomination in your cash bag which were detected by the checking officials at the time of check on 23.1.99 which is against the rules and which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

(6) For having failed to close tickets tray Nos. of all denominations against stage No.4 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

The petitioner submitted his explanation. However, since the competent authority was not satisfied by the same, an enquiry officer was appointed and during the enquiry the petitioner was given ample opportunity of examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and therefore, there are no glaring discrepancies in the enquiry conducted by the authorities and the petitioner has also not raised any objection about the enquiry before any of the authorities below. The learned counsel for the respondent had placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and another (2018) 18 SCC 21. In the said case, it was held that where the employee never raised any objection about the validity of domestic enquiry or of any prejudice of any nature being caused to him before the enquiry officer, such an objection cannot be raised later. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is precluded from taking such objections before this Court at this stage.

As regards the disproportionality of punishment, this Court finds that the charges against the petitioner are for irregularities in issuance of tickets and the charges have been proved in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, it is only to be seen as to whether the charges are so grave as to warrant the punishment of termination of services. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others (2004) 4 SCC 560 has held that where the Court finds that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, then the same can be set aside for reconsideration or modification by the Court itself.

In this case, the charge is of non-issue of two (2) tickets, the total value of which is Rs.10/- only. For such charges, removal from service is excessive and highly disproportionate. However, remanding the issue for reconsideration at this stage is not advisable.

Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the punishment to stoppage of two (2) increments with cumulative effect and payment of 50% of back wages. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay the consequent benefits to the petitioner within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.