THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.15290 OF 2004
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.38 of 2001 dated 07.04.2003 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently prayed to direct the respondents to treat that the 1st petitioner was in service till 19.12.2001, pay all the benefits with effect from 24.03.1998 and consider the claim of his legal heirs for compassionate appointment.
2. The 2nd petitioner is the wife and 3rd and 4th petitioners are the children of the deceased 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C (briefly "the Corporation", hereinafter) in the year 1980. While he was working, a charge sheet was issued on 17.04.1998 framing the following charges:-
"1. For having failed to observe the rule "Issue and start" which amounts to mis-conduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963."
"2. For having failed to "Issue tickets to a batch of three passengers who boarded the bus at Sitarampuram Travelling to Velmajala X Road ex-stage No.8 to 5 in spite of collecting requisite fare of Rs.7-50 (each 2.50 ps) at boarding point at Sitarampuram itself which amounts to mis-conduct under 28(vi) (a) of APSRTC employee conduct Reg.1963."2
"3. For having collected requisite fare Rs.4/- from a passenger, who boarded the bus at Ramaram, and bound for Anantharam, ex-stage No.9 to 6 and you have re-issued ticket No.014/812538 of Rs.7-50 ps denomination. The ticket which was already sold and accounted at stage No. 3 Kallem in 8.30 hrs trip which constitutes mis- conduct under Reg.28(vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct)Reg.1963."
"4. For having failed to close the all ticket tray numbers of all denomination against stage No.6 without completing the above tickets issue, which amounts to mis-conduct under Reg. 28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963".
3. After receipt of the charge sheet, the 1st petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 17.09.1998. A domestic enquiry was conducted on the charges by the enquiry officer duly following the procedure. The enquiry officer found that the charges levelled against the 1st petitioner stand proved. Basing on the enquiry report, the 1st petitioner was removed from service on 22.09.1998.
4. Questioning the removal order, the 1st petitioner filed appeal and revision and same were dismissed vide orders dated 22.09.1998 and 12.08.1999 respectively. Aggrieved by the order of removal as confirmed in the appeal and revision, the 1st petitioner raised Industrial Dispute vide I.D.No.38 of 2001 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal.
3
5. The 1st petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the witness produced on his behalf was not examined by the enquiry officer. In the cross-examination of TTIs, it is stated that they have taken tickets from the hands of conductor (1st petitioner) on which 0 to 0 punching was there and the same were taken as TPTs. But in fact he has issued genuine ticket having its validity up to stage No.9. So far as charge No.3 is concerned, the S.R was closed as per the rules on completion of issuing tickets. It was further contended that the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner, he was not involved in cash and ticket irregularities and thus prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
6. Before the Tribunal, except marking Exs.M-1 to M-18 on behalf of the Corporation, no oral evidence was adduced by either of the parties. The Tribunal, basing on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following points for its consideration:-
"1. Whether the 1st petitioner was given fair and reasonable opportunity during the domestic enquiry?
2. Whether the charges framed against the 1st petitioner are proved, according to law and material on record
3. Whether the punishment imposed against the 1st petitioner in domestic enquiry is disproportionate to the charges proved against the 1st petitioner in the given facts of the matter?"4
7. After examining the record and the exhibits marked in support of the contentions of the respondents, the Tribunal found that the domestic enquiry was conducted by following fair procedure, opportunity was given to the petitioner and as such there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that as per Ex.M-4-S.R., the bus was travelling with 11(7+4) passengers at the time of check, passengers have given statement under Ex.M-7 wherein they deposed that the three passengers boarded at Sitharamuram bound for Vilmajala X Road and at the time of boarding they paid Rs.2.50/- for each passenger i.e.,Rs.7-50 ps in total and the conductor failed to issue tickets to them. The three passengers are aged about 11 years, 10 years and 9 years and in spot explanation under Ex.M-8, the 1st petitioner has stated that the passengers claimed that they are having passes and at the place of alighting they failed to show passes and at that time they have given amount for charges and when he was about to issue tickets the TTI's checked the bus. The Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the 1st petitioner that there was no sufficient time, in fact the bus was not crowded with passengers to take such a plea and the 1st petitioner failed to verify the passes issued to the above three passengers. So far as the charge Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the Tribunal found that as seen from the S.R, ticket No.812538 was already accounted for and the Tribunal 5 has drawn inference that the 1st petitioner has collected the amounts and issued used tickets and again sold the same by reissuing tickets to the passengers. The Tribunal found that it is nothing but a case of reissue of tickets and upheld the findings recorded by the enquiry officer on charge No.3. The Tribunal further found that the 1st petitioner failed to close all ticket tray numbers against stage No.6 and thereby held that charge no.4 also has been proved.
8. Having found that the charges are proved against the 1st petitioner, after referring to the various judgments of this Court, the Tribunal has confirmed the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and dismissed the Industrial Dispute raised by the 1st petitioner. It seems during the pendency of the case before the Tribunal, the 1st petitioner died and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record as legal representatives. Before the Industrial Tribunal, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 also sought for a direction to consider the case of petitioner No.3 for compassionate appointment while setting aside the order of removal of the 1st petitioner. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, present writ petition has been filed.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6
10. I have carefully considered the charges levelled against the 1st petitioner, which have been elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal. It is not the case of the petitioner that the dismissal/removal order was passed by the respondents in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the respondents in their counter affidavit denied that the 1st petitioner has produced any passenger as his witness during the domestic enquiry. In fact in his explanation to enquiry statement the 1st petitioner has stated that he has no witness or evidence to be examined on his behalf. Further, the respondents alleged that the 1st petitioner with a mala fide intention to gain the sympathy of the Court has made false allegations against the enquiry officer. In fact the statement of the passengers would reveal that the 1st petitioner has collected the fare and failed to issue tickets and only on seeing the ticket checking officials, he has taken plea that the passengers claimed that they are having bus passes. In fact the said passengers are not school going children and as such the question of passengers having bus passes does not arise. The 1st petitioner failed to furnish any cogent reasons to interfere with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer or by the Tribunal to interfere with the award.
11. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the evidence led before the enquiry officer to return a finding that the 7 charges levelled against the 1st petitioner stand proved and had passed an order of punishment. The appeal and revision filed by the 1st petitioner aggrieved by said order of punishment were also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal or this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, cannot interfere with the findings, except where it is found that the proceedings were conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry. It is also settled that if the enquiry has been properly conducted, the question of adequacy of evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be a ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries.
12. In this case, the passengers were found travelling without tickets, the Tribunal found that though the passengers had already paid fare to the conductor, the conductor did not issue tickets to the passengers and that there was mala fide intention to misappropriate the fare recovered from the passengers. Unless it is proved that the said findings are perverse or erroneous or not in accordance with law, the same cannot be interfered exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the material evidence adduced before the Industrial Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate. Therefore, this Court 8 is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal warranting interference of this Court.
13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs ______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 11.11.2022 KNR 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15290 OF 2004 11th November, 2022 10 KNR