Y.Niranajan E250066, Nalgonda vs A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyd Anr

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing removal order dated 18.01.1995 vide proceedings bearing No.02/104(52)/94-DVK as illegal and arbitrary, to consequently set aside the award dated 30.03.2000 (wrongly typed as 28.03.2000) passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.117 of 1995 to the extent of confirming the removal order passed by the 2nd respondent and to further direct the respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service and all attendant benefits including full back wages.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1986 in the respondents corporation and since then he had been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and also maintaining unblemished record. While so, on 27.07.1994 a charge memo was issued by the 2nd respondent alleging serious cash and ticket irregularities against the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.08.1994. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted in the matter and the enquiry officer submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Basing on the said enquiry report, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice for removal to the petitioner on 30.12.1994 and thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 18.01.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, vide I.D.No.117 of 1995, before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, seeking to set aside the said order of removal and to reinstate him with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. The Labour Court, vide award dated 30.03.2000, while allowing the industrial dispute in part, set aside the order of removal and directed that the petitioner be appointed afresh and he shall not be entitled for any benefits on account of his past service, such as back wages, attendant benefits. Questioning the said award, so far it denied the relief the continuity of service and other benefits, the present writ petition has been filed.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is evident from the record that when the petitioner was conducting the bus on 23.07.1994 on the route Devarakonda-Miryalaguda, a check was exercised by the checking officials, wherein serious cash and ticket irregularities were detected basing on which a charge memo dated 23.07.1994 was issued to the petitioner framing the following charges:- 1. For having collected Rs.28.00 from (14) individual passengers Rs.2.00 each at the time of boarding point itself, who boarded his bus at Ghanpuram X-Road and found alighting at Polkampally i.e., ex-stages 6 to 8 and issued tickets bearing No.486/006216 to 222 of Rs.2.00 denm (E.7), 486/006225 of Rs.2.00 denm (E.1), 330/188520, 522 and 525 of Rs.2.75 denm (E.3), 268/528336 of Rs.3.50 denm (E.1) and 211/403629 and 631 of Rs.4.25 denm (E.2) the No (E.1) which were already sold-out at stage Nos.17, 15, 11, 06, 07, 11 & 10, respectively in down journey on the route Miryalguda to deverkonda as detailed above, which constitutes misconduct on your part under Reg.28(vi.A) & (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations 1963.

For having refused to signin the 43/R, to attest the statement of passengers, endorsement made by the TTIS in the SR and to give your spot explanation when advised by the TTIS, which constitutes misconduct on your part under Reg.28(viii) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

For having dragged the statement of passengers SR, bearing No.A2/4761627 from the TTIS and termed it which constitute misconduct on yor part under Reg.28 (xxx) to (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

For having dragged the confiscated tickets bearing No.486/006216 to 222 E.7 of Rs.2.00 denm (E.7) from the bonds of TTIS and swallowed them to escape from the case, which constitute misconduct on hour part under Reg.28 (xxx) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.

Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.08.1994. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 11.08.1994. The 2nd respondent, having not been satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, ordered for a domestic enquiry. After careful examination of the material produced in support of the said charges, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. Basing on the enquiry report, a show cause notice for removal was issued to the petitioner dated 30.12.1994 calling upon him to explain as to why the proposed punishment of removal shall not be imposed against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 10.01.1995. As the said explanation was found not satisfactory, the removal order has been passed by the 2nd respondent. Questioning the said removal order, the petitioner preferred I.D.No.117 of 1995 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, and the same was allowed in part. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

The Labour Court has elaborately considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the workman as well as the management and framed the point for its consideration namely, whether the order of removal of the petitioner is justified and if so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled?

While adverting to the point for consideration, the Labour court has elaborately discussed with regard to each charge duly taking note of the statement given by the checking official, Sri C. Jagannadham who deposed that the petitioner had collected Rs.28/- from 14 individual passengers at the rate of Rs.2/- each at the boarding point itself who boarded the bus at Ghanapuram X road and found alighting at Polkampally ex-stages 6 to 8 which were already sold out at stage Nos.17, 15, 11, 06, 07, 11 and 10 respectively in down journey while conducting the service on the route Miryalaguda-Devarakonda. In order to disprove the said evidence, the petitioner has not cross-examined Sri C. Jagannadham and therefore the evidence adduced by the said Sri C. Jagannadham has become final to the effect that the petitioner has collected Rs.28/- from 14 passengers at the rate of Rs.2/- each at the boarding point itself. The Labour Court also found that the statement of the passengers was torn by the petitioner along with the S.R of the service. The said fact was also corroborated by the special report of the checking official marked as Ex.M-6. In the cross-examination also, nothing has been elicited to disprove the said contention. As such the Labour Court found the petitioner guilty of the charge Nos.1 to 4. So far as charge No.5 is concerned, the Labour Court on finding that the petitioner has incited the passengers against the Travelling Ticket Inspectors (TTIs) during the course of the check and prevented them from writing the charge memo which constituted misconduct under Regulation 28(xxx) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (for brevity ‘Regulations’, hereinafter) and duly taking note of Ex.M-6, came to the conclusion that the petitioner incited the passengers against the TTIs and as such held that charge No.5 was also proved.

The Labour Court, having observed that the disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner were valid and proper and principles of natural justice were complied with, however while exercising powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 opined that the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner and accordingly allowed the industrial dispute in part by setting aside the order of removal and by directing that the petitioner be appointed afresh but denied the benefit of past service. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-

“The petitioner is a conductor and a low paid employee and he was working since 9 years to the date of removal. The punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate and a chance be given to him to work to the satisfaction of the respondent hereafter. The mental agony by his under gone and the physical sufferings has undergone due to lack of employment is a sufficient punishment. Having regard to those circumstances, I feel that the order of removal of the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and at the same time I feel that the ends of justice will met if the petitioner s appointed as ‘fresh’ and he shall not be entitled for any attendant benefits and back wagers. The point is decided accordingly.

In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The order of removal is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be appointed as a ‘fresh’. He shall not be entitled for any benefits on account of his past service namely he is not entitled for back-wages, and attendant benefits. His appointment as ‘fresh’ shall be made within one month from the date of publication of the Award. The Award is passed accordingly.”

It is to be seen that reinstatement itself is a consequential benefit arising from imposition of lesser punishment. The award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked or granting relief of continuity of service amounts to rewarding the delinquent employee and amounts to punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee.

Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was found guilty of serious misconduct of cash and ticket irregularities constituting misconduct under Regulation 28(xxx) & (xxxii) of the Regulations. The Labour Court, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Act, has substituted the punishment, having come to the conclusion that the quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct with which the delinquent employee was charged.

On examination of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer as well as by the Labour Court, I am of the view that in the absence of any challenge made by the management questioning the findings recorded by the Labour Court while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Act, this Court normally would not re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, as the Labour Court has exercised its discretionary power judiciously and assigned valid reasons to modify the punishment of removal imposed against the petitioner to that of reinstatement into service afresh, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference by this Court and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.