Telangana High Court
M.Somaiah vs The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.16782 of 2017
Dated 26th March, 2026.
Between:
M. Somaiah
... Petitioner
AND
The Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C.,
Warangal-I Depot, Hanumakonda,
and another.
... Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the record relating the impugned award dated 22.12.2015 made in I.D.No.11/2014 on the file of the 2nd Respondent - Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal to the extent not granting attendant benefits and full back wages to the petitioner for the period out of employment and set aside the same to that extent as arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law and consequently grant attendant benefits and full back wages to the petitioner and pass..."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver on daily wage basis on 16.11.1987, and his services were subsequently regularized on 01.01.1990. However, on 2 PK, J W.P.No.16782 of 2017 29.11.2011, while the petitioner was operating the Ticket Issuing Machine (TIM), on route Warangal - Shiridi, a check was exercised at Stage No.17-Basmath at about 23-45 hours, wherein, the petitioner was alleged to have been involved in cash and ticket irregularities, having collected lesser fare from the passenger. As such, the petitioner was issued with a Charge Sheet dated 12.12.2011, and after considering his explanation, a domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer has conducted an enquiry and accordingly, held charge No.2 as proved. Basing on the said enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings dated 23.04.2012. The appeal, revision and mercy petitions preferred by the petitioner were also rejecting vide orders dated 06.08.2012, 04.03.2013 and 30.05.2013 respectively, confirming his removal. Thereafter, the petitioner raised I.D.No.11 of 2014 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, (for short, 'the Tribunal), and the Tribunal has passed the award dated 22.12.2015, setting aside the petitioner's removal order and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, however, denied backwages and attendant benefits. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri N. Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for 3 PK, J W.P.No.16782 of 2017 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to examine the witnesses. However, despite the enquiry officer recording that no passenger has boarded at Bodhan and that tickets were issued to the passengers boarded at Nizamabad, he failed to arrive at a definite conclusion with respect to Charge No.,1 and erroneously and arbitrarily held Charge No.2 as proved, basing on which report, the petitioner has been illegally removed from service. It is further contended that the appeal, revision and mercy petitions have been rejected, without properly appreciating the facts or material on record. As such, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Tribunal and filed I.D.No.11 of 2014, wherein, the Tribunal has categorically held that the petitioner had no intention to defraud the revenue of the Corporation and that it is not a case of misappropriation. It was also held that the passenger has given a false statement to the TTIs that he boarded the bus at Bodhan for Basmath, and it was a case of overriding by the passenger but not misappropriation of fare by the petitioner. As such vide award dated 22.12.2015, the Tribunal has set aside the petitioner's removal order and granted reinstatement with 4 PK, J W.P.No.16782 of 2017 continuity of service. However, the Tribunal, having held that main charge against the petitioner has not been proved and on holding that the punishment of removal is highly disproportionate, ought not to have denied full back wages and attendant benefits for the period of his unemployment. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to extend full back wages and attendant benefits.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on filing of a counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner, while performing his duties as a TIM Driver on 29.11.2011 on route Warangal-Shiridi, was found involved in cash and ticket irregularities during the check conducted by the TTIs. He had issued unconcerned tickets of Rs.127/- valid from Nizamabad to Nanded, by collecting Rs.130/- instead of Rs.157/- from one passenger towards the requisite fare, who boarded the bus at Bodhan, and bound for Basmath. As such, the petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo on the spot and he had submitted his spot explanation admitting his guilt. Subsequently, based on the material evidence, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.12.2011 and a Charge Sheet, with two charges, was issued. However, as the explanation of the petitioner was unconvincing, a domestic enquiry was ordered and conducted, in consonance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with 5 PK, J W.P.No.16782 of 2017 the Regulations of the Corporation. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding Charge No.2 as proved, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.03.2012, and the petitioner submitted his objections/comments. However, no fresh valid points were raised by the petitioner. As such, basing on the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 13.04.2012, calling for his explanation as to why the punishment of removal from service shall not be inflicted upon him. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.04.2012. The disciplinary authority has gone through the entire material evidence and the explanations submitted by the petitioner, and imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 23.04.2012, which is just and proper for the proven misconduct. It is further submitted that the appeal and review petitions preferred by the petitioner were also rejected vide proceedings dated 06.08.2012 and 04.03.2013 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review appeal before the Executive Director, Karimnagar, which was also rejected on merits vide proceedings dated 30.05.2013. However, the Labour Court has taken a lenient view in the matter and allowed I.D.No.11 of 2014 vide award dated 22.12.2015, directing reinstatement with continuity of service, but 6 PK, J W.P.No.16782 of 2017 without back wages. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition as devoid of any merit.
6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 23.04.2012, owing to his alleged failure in observing the 'issue and start' rule, and cash and ticket irregularity. The petitioner's appeal, review and review appeal were all rejected by the respective authorities vide proceedings dated 06.08.2012, 04.03.2013 and 30.05.2013, respectively. The petitioner then raised I.D.No.11 of 2014 before the Labour Court, which was allowed vide award dated 22.12.2015, directing reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The following is an excerpt of the award passed by the Labour Court:
"12. As rightly submitted by the petitioner, it was a clear case of overriding by the passenger. But the petitioner ought to have taken head count at Nanded and proceeded further. If the passenger was continuing the journey to Basmath, he ought to have collected the requisite fare and issued proper ticket to him. His negligence in discharge of duty led to overriding by the passenger. Had the check not taken place, the Corporation would have sustained loss of Rs.30/.
13. For the foregoing reasons, it must be held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that charge No.1 as regards the petitioner's 7 PK, J W.P.No.16782 of 2017 failure to observe the rule "Issue and Start" was proved is not baseless but the finding that the other charge was proved is baseless. The point is answered accordingly.
14. The next point for determination is: Whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proven misconduct?
15. Charge No.1 is held proved and charge No.2 is held not proved. Admittedly, the petitioner was performing TIM service and the check was exercised at 23.45 hours. In the circumstances, the possibility of the petitioner not noticing the passenger in the bus prior to the check cannot be ruled out. The petitioner is now aged 56 years. At this age, he cannot get any alternative employment. It is not shown that the petitioner had intention of defrauding the Corporation. Further, this is not a case of misappropriate of fare.
...
17. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision in M.R.Naidu's case, it must be held that the punishment of removal is disproportionate and punishment less than that will meet the ends of justice.
18. IN THE RESULT, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages. The petitioner is accordingly allowed."
8. From a perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court, it is unequivocally clear that there are no procedural irregularities in the conduct of domestic enquiry, as alleged by the petitioner. Further, out of the two charges leveled against the petitioner, one charge, pertaining to non-observance of 'Issue and Start' Rule, was conclusively held proved. The Labour Court, having held this Charge as proved, appears to have taken a lenient view in the case of the petitioner, owing to his age at that time, which was (56) years. The Labour Court also having 8 PK, J W.P.No.16782 of 2017 found that it is not a case of misappropriation, categorically held that the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate and a lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. As such, the Labour Court, while setting aside the petitioner's removal order and granting reinstatement with continuity of service, rightly rejected awarding back wages.
9. It is well-settled law that the award of back wages upon reinstatement is not automatic, but is wholly dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The burden of proving that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere usually lies upon the employer in order to deny back wages. However, it is equally important for the workman to prove, if not plead, that he was not employed elsewhere. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Phool Chand (D)1, has categorically made the following observations regarding the grant of back wages.
"11. In our considered opinion, the courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service.
1 (2018) SCC 18 299 9 PK, J W.P.No.16782 of 2017
12. It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. Initial burden is, however, on the employee.
13. In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial, depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages are required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies, etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, M.P. SEB v. Jarina Bee [M.P. SEB v. Jarina Bee, (2003) 6 SCC 141 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 833] , Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh [Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 716] , U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday NarainPandey [U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 250] , J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651] , Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. V. Venkatesan [Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 719] , Jagbir Singh v.
Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board [Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545] and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184]."
10. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to plead before the Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the 10 PK, J W.P.No.16782 of 2017 period of removal. Further, the reinstatement was awarded by the Labour Court duly taking a lenient view in the matter, rather than entirely holding the removal as illegal. The Labour Court has also upheld that the petitioner was guilty of one of the two charges leveled against him.
11. In the circumstances, this Court does not find reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. As such, the present writ petition fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 26.03.2026.
GSP