R.S.Manyam, ... vs The Industrial Tribunal Cum ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 338 AP

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

            WRIT PETITION No. 31918 of 2016

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

"...to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari after calling for the records relating to the Award in I.D. No.64 of 2013, dt.31.08.2015 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in to service with continuity of service and back wages in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case".

2. Aggrieved by the Order dated 31.08.2015 confirming the

removal order passed by the respondents herein, by the

Industrial Disputes Court in I.D. No.64 of 2013 dated, the

present writ petition was filed.

3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as

conductor in the year 2009 by the respondent corporation and

he is discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction to the

authorities, but on 23.10.2012, while the petitioner conducting

duties as conductor in the route Kuppam to Tirupatur a check

was exercised at Narayanacheruvu near Natrampalli by Civil

Supplies Authorities, Chennai and it was found E-28 bags of

PDS rice each 50 kg, for which the Civil Supplies Authorities,

Tamilnadu, have ceased the vehicle and the same was intimated

to the Depot Manager. Basing upon the seizure of the vehicle by

the Civil Supplies Police, Tamilnadu, a charge sheet was issued

against the petitioner herein with the following charges:

a. "For having allowed public distribution scheme rice E28 bags of each 50 Kgs in your service vehicle from Tirupatur to Kuppam on 23.10.2012 while performing duty on the route Kuppam to Tirupatur with Veh.No.AP28Z 0084 and the vehicle was seized by civil supplies authorities Vellore at Narayanachervu near Natrapalli which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (iv) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.

b. For having allowed E28 bags of each 550 KGs public distribution scheme rice as unaccompanied luggage from Tirupatur to Kuppam on 23.10.2012 which shows your gross negligence while performing duty and constitutes a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees conduct Reg.1963.

c. For having been arrested by Civil Supplies department and sent for remand up to 07.11.2012 for illegal transportation of public Distribution scheme rice involving moral turpitude which is punishable under the provision of Indian Penal Code which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (iv) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.

d. For having caused loss of earnings to the vehicle seized by Civil supplies department, Chennai from 23.10.2012 to 01.11.2012 to a tune of Rs.70,000.00 and imposed penalty by civil supplies authorities, Vellore of Rs.53,200-00 due to your fraud and misappropriation with the property of the

corporation and constitutes a misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg. 1963.

e. For having failed to inform the vehicle seize matter to Depot Manager and Depot supervisors on 23.10.2012 which was seized by Civil Supplies Police, Tamilnadu which shows your gross negligence and violated the instructions of the Corporation which and constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (x) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963."

4. After conducting enquiry by the respondent corporation

as per A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, the

petitioner has been removed from service on 16.02.2013.

Against the said disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner herein

filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same

came to be rejected on 25.03.2013.

5. Aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner

herein filed I.D. before the Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu. The

Industrial Tribunal has framed a charge, which is extracted

hereunder:

"Whether there exists any infirmity in Ex.M-2 proceedings that were issued by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings No.01/227(1)/2012-KPM dated 16.2.2013 through which the Petitioner was removed from the services of the Respondent's Corporation as contended by the Petitioner herein and if so, to what relief the Petitioner in the capacity of Workman is entitled to?

6. It is the contention of the petitioner before the Industrial

Tribunal that the petitioner herein was allowed the PDS rice

bags loaded in the bus with a bonafide intention that the

luggage bags will fetch the revenue to the respondent

corporation and the owner of the rice has not informed that the

said rice pertains to the PDS. Only after seizure of the said rice

bags, the petitioner came to know that the said item is

prohibited item for transportation and in the circumstances, the

petitioner herein is entitled for reinstatement.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent corporation filed

counter affidavit and contended that the petitioner was

appointed as Casual Conductor in the year 2009 and his

services were subsequently regularized but his annual

increments were deferred on 5 occasions and amounts were

recovered from his salary on 10 occasions and he was finally

removed from the service due to his involvement in an illegal

transportation of Public Distribution Scheme Rice and thus he

is bereft of any clean record of service. And it is also contention

of the corporation that the vehicle was seized, there was loss of

earnings to a tune of Rs.70,000/- and the Civil Supplies

Authorities imposed penalty of Rs.53,200/- and thereby the

petitioner tarnished the image of the corporation which is a

serious misconduct on his part and therefore he is not entitled

for any relief of reinstatement and prayed to dismiss the

dispute.

8. The Industrial Tribunal after considering the evidence

meticulously and hearing the writ petitioner herein and the

respondent corporation, has dismissed the dispute by an order

dated 31.08.2015 confirming the removal order passed by the

corporation. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ

petition is filed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the pleadings

which were raised in the Industrial Tribunal and would submit

that as per the regulations of the A.P.S.R.T.C., there is no such

prohibition to transport the rice. Therefore, he prayed to set

aside the order in ID No.64 of 2013 consequently prayed to

direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into

service.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as

per the circular No.75 of 2002-OPD(P), dated 28.10.2002, the

passenger is allowed to carry any type of permitted article

without any charge upto 50 kgs in 5 pieces/packets. If a

passenger intends to carry 6th piece/packet of luggage, he has

to pay normal luggage charge applicable for a unit of 25 Kgs.,

even though the total weight of all the 6 pieces/packets does not

exceed the free allowance luggage limit i.e. 50 kgs. The limit of

luggage is 500 kgs at a time on the roof of the bus. As per the

conditions of the circular, one should not be allowed prohibited

articles. As the writ petitioner herein is allowed the prohibited

articles, in view of the Circular Memo as indicated supra, the

petitioner has carried the PDS rice and therefore he is not

entitled for any relief and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment

of composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the A.V. Swamy

v. The A.P.S.R.T.C. in W.P. No.1082 of 2010 and contended that

the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and when the

finding of the Tribunal is perverse, the writ court is having

jurisdiction to set aside the punishment. He also relies on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh

v. Hazarilal1 for the proposition "Dismissal when warranted -

factors to be considered.

12. The case of A.V. Swamy is entirely different from the

present case. In the present case, the petitioner herein has

1 (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 273

admitted that he has allowed the PDS rice but he contends that

he does not know that the rice is the prohibited item which was

done unintentionally, therefore, he should have been reinstated

into service,.

13. It is the contention of the respondents herein that the

petitioner herein has been awarded cutting of annual increment

for 5 times and they have recovered the same from his salary in

ten occasions. As per the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations,1967 under

regulation No.9(2): defines desirous misconduct includes the

following act of misconduct, an employee shall be liable to be

removed from the service in the following circumstances namely

(A) xxxx, (B) Misconduct (C) xxxx (D) Repeated Commissioning

of minor offences, (E) xxxx (F) xxxx (G) xxxx (H) xxxx. As per the

counter affidavit filed by the corporation in the Industrial

Tribunal the petitioner was imposed minor punishment of

deferring annual increments for 5 times which amounts to

repeated commission and his case is that without any intention

he allowed the PDS rice bags into the bus and it is very known

law "ignorance of law is no excuse" and he has admitted that he

has allowed the rice bags which is the prohibited item. And it is

also settled law that an admitted fact need not be proved. When

admission made by delinquent shows that he had committed

mistake. The question of violation of principles of natural

justice cannot have any relevance. In the present case, he

admitted and allowed the bags but his contention is that he

does not know the rice bags are the prohibited items. As stated

supra, ignorance of law has no excuse. Even assuming that, as

per the conduct rules, there is no such prohibition for allowing

the PDS rice any other activity not specifically covered above but

it is prima face detrimental to the interest of the organization,

shall be treated as misconduct. In the present case, the

Tamilnadu Government has imposed the fine of Rs.53,200/- to

the corporation. Hence, it is detrimental to the organization.

14. On summing up of all the contentions and law, this court

finds no reasons to interfere with the order dated 31.08.2015,

passed by the Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu. Accordingly, the

Writ Petition is dismissed. However, no costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 25.01.2023 HARI

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO

W.P.No. 31918 OF 2016

Date: 25-01-2023

Harin