THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.466 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. A.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel representing
Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana
State Road Transport Corporation for the appellant. None has
appeared for respondent No.1/writ petitioner though name of
Ms. S.A.V.Ratnam as counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner is reflected in the cause list.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.23856 of 2003 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the award dated 28.06.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'Labour 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.466 of 2019 Court') as well as for his reinstatement in service in the establishment of the appellant with continuity of service and full back wages.
4. It may be mentioned that on the charge of misconduct relating to cash and ticket irregularities, respondent No.1 who was a Conductor in the establishment of the appellant, was imposed the penalty of removal from service by the disciplinary authority which was affirmed by the Labour Court. By the order under appeal, learned Single Judge took the view that punishment of removal from service was very disproportionate and accordingly directed the appellant to reinstate the 1st respondent in service as a fresh Conductor after setting aside the order of removal as well as award of the Labour Court.
5. On appeal this Court passed an order on 23.11.2021 staying the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2018, which order has since been continued.
6. At the relevant point of time, 1st respondent was serving as a Conductor in the establishment of the appellant. On 06.08.1997 officials of the appellant carried out a check on the 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.466 of 2019 passenger bus, of which 1st respondent was the Conductor. It was found that 1st respondent had collected fares from altogether 13 passengers but had failed to issue tickets to them. Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.
7. Disciplinary authority framed the following charges against the 1st respondent:
"1. "For having collected an amount of Rs.2/- each from four (4) passengers and failed to issue tickets who boarded your bus at Bellampally and alighting at Boyapally ex- stage 9 to 10 which is mis-conduct in terms of Reg. No. 28(x) of the APSRTC Employees(conduct) Reg. 1963".
2. "For having collected an amount of Rs.2.50 each from nine(9) passengers (Batches and individuals) and failed to issue tickets who boarded your bus at Bellampally and alighting which is mis-conduct in terms of Reg. No. 28(x) of the APSRTC Employees(conduct) Reg. 1963".
3. "For having intentionally not handedover the SR after completion of your duty along with bud cash at Asifabad Depot with malafied intention which is mis-conduct in terms of Reg. No. 28(xxxii) of the APSRTC, Employees(conduct) Reg. 1963".
4. "For having failed to close the ticket tray Nos. of all denomination up to stage No. 10 and marked as XXX without completing the above ticket issues which is mis-
4 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.466 of 2019
conduct in terms of Reg. No.28(xxxv) of the APSRTC, Employees(conduct) Reg. 1963"."
8. In this connection show cause notice was issued to 1st respondent on 06.08.1997 under the then Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the '1963 Regulations'). It is stated that 1st respondent had submitted explanation. In his explanation, 1st respondent stated that as the bus was getting late, the passengers had pressurised the 1st respondent to start the bus before issuing tickets. Passengers had misrepresented before the checking authority that no tickets were issued to them.
9. It appears that explanation furnished by the 1st respondent was not accepted by the disciplinary authority whereafter an inquiry was ordered. On conclusion of the inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted report holding that charges framed against the 1st respondent stood proved. It was thereafter that disciplinary authority issued the order dated 17.01.1998 removing the 1st respondent from service.
5 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.466 of 2019
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.01.1998, 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute by filing a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. Labour Court vide the award dated 28.06.2001 did not find any error or infirmity either in the domestic inquiry or in the order of penalty. Confirming the order of removal from service, petition filed by the 1st respondent was dismissed.
11. While dismissing the petition of the 1st respondent, Labour Court examined the evidence on record. As per material Ex.M-4, there were 47 passengers in the passenger bus at the time of the checking. It was found that 1st respondent did not issue tickets to 13 passengers. Therefore, Inquiry Officer held that charges framed against the 1st respondent stood proved, which was also accepted by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the Labour Court. Labour Court also took the view that punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the gravity of the charges.
12. 1st respondent thereafter filed the related writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
6 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.466 of 2019
13. By the order dated 14.11.2018 learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent in service as fresh Conductor.
14. Relevant portion of the order dated 14.11.2018 reads as under:
"6. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties and the nature of the charges leveled against the petitioner, is of the considered view, that the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner is very disproportionate and the Labour Court ought to have examined the case of the petitioner and interfered with the punishment of removal, by applying the proportionality theory and at least, the Labour Court ought to have directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh Conductor. Since the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the respondent- Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh Conductor.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh Conductor, subject to medical fitness, without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits. There shall be no order as to costs."
7 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.466 of 2019
15. From the above, we find that learned Single Judge took the view that punishment of removal from service imposed on the 1st respondent was very disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Learned Single Judge did not question the fact that the charges levelled against the 1st respondent was proved.
Learned Single Judge proceeded that on the basis of the proven charges, punishment of removal from service was harsh and disproportionate. Therefore, learned Single Judge directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent in service as a fresh Conductor but without continuity of service and back wages.
16. We are afraid we cannot accept such conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge which runs contrary to the evidence and findings on record. It is not the amount involved which is relevant. The fact that as a Conductor 1st respondent did not issue tickets to 13 passengers from whom he had taken the fare amounts to misuse of his office which is certainly a misconduct. This charge against the 1st respondent was proved in the domestic inquiry, which finding has also been affirmed by the Labour Court. No reason has been assigned by the learned Single 8 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.466 of 2019 Judge to differ from the views taken by the disciplinary authority as well as by the Labour Court.
17. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Bihari1, Supreme Court held that amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is not material. What is relevant is the act of misappropriation. In such cases, any sympathy shown would be totally uncalled for and opposed to public policy. This position has been consistently taken by the Supreme Court. Finally in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma2, after summarising the law, Supreme Court held that the High Court while dealing with a challenge of similar nature is under an obligation to give not only reasons but cogent reasons while reversing findings of fact recorded by a domestic Tribunal. In the facts of that case, it was categorically held that though punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, however in a case of corruption/misappropriation, quantum being immaterial, the only punishment that can be imposed is dismissal.
1 AIR 1996 SC 1249
2 (2010)6 SCC 555
9 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.466 of 2019
18. Be that as it may, on due consideration we are of the view that learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the Labour Court.
19. Consequently, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.23856 of 2003 and dismiss the said writ petition. Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 14.11.2022 KL