Depot Manager,Apsrtc. vs Veera Thirupathi Another

1 Questioning the legality and validity of the Award dated 21.07.2005 passed in I.D.No.86 of 1996 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, wherein and whereby the Tribunal set aside the removal order of the first respondent from service and directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the first respondent into service with continuity of service along with 15% of back wages, the Depot Manager, erstwhile APSRTC (now TSRTC), Karimnagar-I, filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2 The factual matrix that germane for consideration are that the first respondent worked as conductor in APSRTC, Karimnagar-I depot. On 25.09.1992 while he was conducting bus No.3370 on route Gannerevaram to Vemulawada, a check was exercised by the TTIs at about 11.40 hours at Vemulawada stage No.9 and found some irregularities in issuing tickets to the passengers. Thereupon the following charges were framed:

For having violated the Rule “Iissue and Start”,

For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.1-75 ps., each from eight (8) individual passengers at their boarding place itself and failed to issue tickets, who boarded the bus at Nampalli and alighting without tickets at Vemulawada ex-stages 7/8 to 9.,

For having already closed the ticket tray numbers of all denos., in the SR, up to stage No.9, without completing the above ticket issues to 8 passengers.

3 Thereafter domestic enquiry was conducted wherein it was revealed that at Nampalli 14 passengers boarded the bus. The first respondent collected the fare and issued tickets to all the said passengers. Then he suffered with headache and fits. After Nampalli stage, eight passengers, mentioned in Charge No.2 above, boarded the bus but the first respondent does not know that there were some ticketless passengers till the bus reached Vemulawada. When he was going to ask the passengers for taking tickets the TTIs checked the bus. On that the above irregularities were found and the charges mentioned above were framed against the first respondent. The first respondent did not deny the existence of ticketless passengers. After following the due procedure and principles of natural justice, and having found that the charges levelled against the first respondent were proved, the petitioner issued show cause notice of removal from service to the first respondent on 15.01.1993. The first respondent also submitted his explanation to the same. As the charges were proved, the petitioner passed final orders removing the first respondent from service on 28.01.1993. The appeal and review petitions preferred by the first respondent were rejected on merits.

4 Challenging the said findings, the first respondent initially filed an I.D before the Tribunal and that I.D was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred W.P.No.8187 of 2001. This Court allowed the said writ petition and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal on merits.

5 The Tribunal after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides, set aside the removal order of the first respondent from service and directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the first respondent into service with continuity of service and with 15% of back wages, award dated 21.07.2005.

6 As stated supra, aggrieved by the same, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar-I, filed this writ petition.

7 While admitting the writ petition, this Court by order dated 23.03.2006 granted interim suspension of the impugned award to the extent of award of back wages, pending disposal of the writ petition.

8 Though notices were served on the first respondent, he did not choose to enter appearance. No counter affidavit has also been filed. It seems that the first respondent is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence this Court is constrained to dispose of this writ petition on merits.

9 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – Corporation and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the principle laid down in State of Karnataka Vs. N.Gangaraj (2020) 3 SCC 423 and Deputy General Manager Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612.

10 The principle enunciated in both the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal or High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority by reappreciating evidence as if they were appellate authority. But in the instant case, it is not the case of the Tribunal nor the first respondent that the charges were not proved. The acceptable reason offered by the first respondent was that he was in unconscious condition because of which he could not issue tickets, which fact though not admitted but was not denied by the TTI.

11 Now the question for determination before this Court is “Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for”?

12 The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is purely based on the medical evidence put forth by the first respondent in the form of Exs.W.4 and W.5 and the admission of the TTI that the first respondent suffered with headache and fits after Nampalli. As seen from the record the first respondent had already issued tickets to 14 passengers at Nampalli and that three passengers boarded the bus at stage No.8 while he was unconscious. The TTI admitted that the first respondent told him about ticketless passengers, and the reason which the first respondent had given was that he was unconscious.

13 In the instant case though the charges are proved against the first respondent that he failed to issue tickets to 8 passengers that was not done by him with any malafide intention. Further, the TTI has not checked the cash to establish that the first respondent had taken cash from the passengers but not issued tickets to attribute any malafide intention. Moreover, it is admitted that TTI had imposed fine on the ticketless passengers. The learned Tribunal had already taken a lenient view and ordered reinstatement of the first respondent into service. This Court also did not interfere with that part of the award of the Tribunal but suspended the award of the Tribunal to the extent of payment of 15% of back wages.

14 Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition partly to the extent of reinstatement into service with continuity of service only and the award of 15% of back wages as awarded by the Tribunal may be set aside.

15 This writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.