HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.20794 of 2018
ORDER :
Challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated 22.01.2018 passed by Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.61 of 2015.
2. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Kesamsetty learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC. Perused the record.
3. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Conductor in TSRTC on 10.01.2008 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.09.2010. On 06.05.2014, while he was conducting the bus service from Nizamabad to Kanigiri, a check was conducted by the checking officials at Ibrahimpatnam and a Memo was issued to him alleging that he collected fare from two passengers who boarded the bus at Nizamabad at the rate of Rs.695/- each but issued tickets worth of Rs.790/- only instead of Rs.1,390/-. The petitioner explained to the TTIs. that he issued tickets in combination to both the passengers individually viz., 6 2 JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018 tickets of Rs.100/-, 1 ticket of Rs.70/-, 1 ticket of Rs.20/- and 1 ticket of Rs.5/-. It is stated that the checking officials have obtained the check documents in forcible manner and that the statement of the passenger was recorded as dictated by the TTIs., after obtaining the thumb impression of passenger on blank paper and that the petitioner's statement was also obtained as per the version of TTIs., which are in violation of checking Rules prescribed in Chapter No.79 of TSRTC Operational Manual and Circulars issued by the RTC from time to time. It is also his case that had the checking officials verified the SR and the tickets issued, the same would have been tallied, as he issued 61 tickets of Rs.100/- denomination, which include the tickets of the two passengers in question. The petitioner was kept under suspension vide order dated 17.05.2014 and a charge sheet was also issued on the same day with the charges as under:
"1. For having violated the rule 'issue and start' which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)
(a) & (b) of APSRTC (Conduct) Reg. 1963.
2. For having collected Rs.1,390/- from a batch of 2 passengers who boarded your bus at Nizamabad and bound for Kanigiri ex-stage 1 to 22 and issued Ticket No.156/414249 to 254 of Rs.600/-3
JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018 T.No.121/296065 to 853 of Rs.140/- No.758/117852 to 853 of Rs.40/- No.11/174254 to 285 of Rs.10/- denomination i.e. less of Rs.600/- worth of tickets were not issued while performing duty on route Nizamabad-Kanigiri on 06.05.2014 which constitute misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963."
4. On receipt of the charge sheet, the petitioner had submitted his explanation, and later, an inquiry was ordered into those charges. It is stated that the inquiry officer has conducted the inquiry prejudicial to his interest and no independent evidence was adduced in the inquiry in support of the charges and ultimately submitted a report that the petitioner did not issue the 6 tickets of Rs.100/- denomination. Basing on the said report, the petitioner was removed from service.
5. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis on 10.01.2008 and subsequently his services were regularized from 01.09.2010. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have given the four earlier instances relating to involvement of petitioner in cash and ticket irregularities and the punishments imposed. It is 4 JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018 stated that the petitioner has once again involved in cash and ticket irregularity while conducting Bus No.AP-32-Z-0060 on Nizamabad-Kanigiri route on 06.05.2014 by collecting a total amount of Rs.1390/- from a batch of two passengers but issued tickets worth Rs.790/- only and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.600/-. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension; charges were framed against him; inquiry was conducted by following due procedure; petitioner was given opportunity to defend himself, which he failed to avail; inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner to submit his objections on the same and ultimately, it was established that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Accordingly, a show cause notice for removal dated 28.08.2014 was issued to the petitioner but as the petitioner did not put-forth any valid points to re-consider the proposed punishment, he was removed from service vide proceedings dated 02.09.2014. Since the appeal and review preferred by the petitioner are rejected, the petitioner has preferred I.D.No.61 of 2015 before Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, which was also dismissed by order dated 22.01.2018. It is stated that the 5 JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018 Labour Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, has upheld the orders removing the petitioner from service and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Accordingly, respondents have prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the Labour Court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence before it and come to a different conclusion than that of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, but such exercise was not done by the Labour Court. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned Award.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was removed from service on the proven misconduct, which was approved by the appellate and revisional authorities and it was further approved by the Labour Court by way of well-reasoned impugned Award. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6
JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018
8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularity while conducting the bus from Nizamabad to Kanigiri, as he collected a total fare of Rs.1,390/- but issued tickets worth Rs.790/- only, and thus, misappropriated the amount of Rs.600/-. On noticing the same during the course of check, the Ticket Inspectors recorded the passenger's statement, which was attested to be true, by the petitioner. The passengers categorically stated that they boarded the bus at Nizamabad and bound for Kanigiri and that they tendered Rs.1,390/- to the petitioner towards fare for two persons, but they were issued short of tickets worth Rs.600/- and they came to know about the same when the checking officials checked the bus. The said statement was recorded in the very presence of petitioner and he endorsed the said statement to be correct. After making such endorsement, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that his endorsement was obtained forcibly. Further, in his spot explanation to the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted that he issued tickets worth Rs.790/- only instead of Rs.1,390/- to the two passengers, as there was galata in the bus with regard to the seats among the 7 JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018 passengers. Thus, the petitioner has accepted the illegality and pleaded for mercy. As rightly observed by the Labour Court, if really there was no such irregularity or illegality on his part, there was no necessity for the petitioner to allow the checking officials to take TPTs. from his tray and further, he can protest to endorse the passenger's statement. Further, if the petitioner has really issued the 6 tickets of Rs.100/- denomination for the balance amount of Rs.600/- as contended by him, he could have shown the serial numbers of those tickets. On one hand, he contended that he could issue tickets worth Rs.790/- only to the two passengers due to the galata in the bus and on the other hand, he contend that he has issued tickets for the total amount of Rs.1,390/-.
9. Further, it is to be seen that during the course of inquiry, the statement of the ticket checking official by name B.R.Chander was recorded in the presence of the petitioner and he deposed about the illegality committed by the petitioner. Inspite of giving opportunity, the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, did not cross-examine the said witness and thus, the statement of the ticket checking official remained unchallenged. Even when the 8 JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018 petitioner was examined during the course of inquiry, he deposed nothing in defence, except asking the inquiry officer to consider his explanation submitted to the charge sheet.
10. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in S.L.Narsaiah v. Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad and another 1, wherein, the order removing the petitioner from service was set aside on the ground that neither the passengers nor the persons connected with the check were examined. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the case on hand, the statement of passenger was recorded in the presence of petitioner, which was also attested by the petitioner himself and the statement of checking official was also recorded in the presence of petitioner during the course of inquiry, but he did not choose to cross- examine the said checking official to rebut his evidence.
11. In another judgment of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of S.V.Suryanarayana v. 1 2011 (1) ALD 713 9 JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018 APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director and others 2, when there were contradictory statements by the passengers and when such passengers were not examined during the course of inquiry, this Court set aside the orders of Labour Court. This judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in this case, the statement of passenger was recorded in the presence of petitioner and the petitioner himself has endorsed such statement of passenger to be true. Further, the petitioner has also not cross-examined the ticket checking official during the course of inquiry.
12. In another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of A.V.Swami v. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal and another 3, this Court set aside the order of the Labour Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the ground that lot of emphasis was placed on the past service of the petitioner while passing the order. However, in the present case, the order of removal was upheld by the Labour 2 2016 (2) ALT 26 3 1990 (1) LLN 648 10 JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018 Court basing on the entire material on record, and hence, this judgment is also not helpful to the case of the petitioner.
13. In another judgment of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.30772 of 2010, dated 03.10.2018, there was shortage of cash compared to the tickets sold and when the same was noticed after the bus was returned to the Depot, the petitioner therein was removed from service as he failed to remit such amount on the same day. In such circumstances, this Court directed to reinstate the petitioner therein into service as a fresh Conductor subject to medical fitness without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits. This judgment is also not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as in the present case, it was not the case of shortage of cash noticed after reaching the Depot, but the irregularity of collecting cash and not issuing tickets has come to light during the check conducted by the officials.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Labour Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11
JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018
15. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 13.09.2023 ajr