Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager vs K.Raj Kumar on 19 November, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.244 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
02.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.16742 of 2017 by the learned Single
Judge.
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent/employee
was serving on the post of Conductor and a charge sheet was
issued on 13.11.2007. After conducting a departmental enquiry,
an order of removal was passed on 30.05.2008. The respondent/
employee filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Tribunal has interfered with
the quantum of punishment. The order of removal was set aside
and the punishment was modified to that of reinstatement in to
service without back wages and treating the period of suspension
as not on duty. It was also ordered that the employee shall be
entitled for notional increments. The Tribunal, after scanning the
entire evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the explanation given
by the employee was correct. He did issue tickets correctly to two
passengers, who boarded the bus at Godavarikani, and the
passenger was due of Rs.8/-. However, it was not noted on the
reverse of the ticket as he wanted to return Rs.8/-. In respect of
other passengers, he gave ticket of Rs.156/- to two passengers and
they gave him Rs.500/-, which he noted on the reverse of the ticket
that Rs.500/- was given. Meaning thereby, an endorsement was
made that the amount has to be refunded back to the passengers.
The first charge that he collected Rs.340/- from a passenger
though the ticket was Rs.312/-, the second charge was that he
received Rs.500/- for tickets worth Rs.312/- and the remaining
amount was not returned and the third charge is that he taken
Rs.4/- extra from one passenger. Proper explanation was given by
the employee. In those circumstances, leniency was shown to him.
The APSRTC (now TSRTC) being aggrieved by the order dated
01.07.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, preferred a writ
petition and the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with
the award. Paragraphs 4 to 13 of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge read as under:
"4. The respondent contended in defence that he issued tickets
to all passengers who boarded the bus properly and that he had
no knowledge about the tickets and systems. But he was
entertaining some confusion about opening of TIMs computer
machine. He also stated that he issued tickets correctly to the two
passengers who boarded the bus at Godavarikhani and due of
Rs.8/- was not noted on the reverse of the ticket because he
wanted to return it immediately; that he gave a ticket for Rs.156/-
to two passengers who have given Rs.500/- note; and that he had
noted on the reverse of the ticket that he was given Rs.500/-; and
he also endorsed Rs.30/- to be given to the another passenger.
5. However, the petitioner imposed punishment for removal
from service. He was therefore removed from the services of the
petitioner on 30-05-2008.
6. He raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was numbered as I.D.No.39
of 2008 before the Tribunal.
7. On 01-07-2014, the Tribunal set aside the order of removal
and directed the respondent's reinstatement without backwages
and treating the period of suspension as 'not on duty'. It also
directed continuity of service to be given to him apart from
notional increments.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that
notional increments could not have been granted to the
respondent by the Tribunal having directed that period of
suspension would not be treated as duty.
9. This contention is without merit because the petitioner was
awarded continuity of service though not back wages and the
period of suspension was very short period between 07-11-2007
and 30-05-2008 only.
10. No other contention was advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
11. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal did
not make any error in granting notional increments to the
respondent. I therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Petition.
12. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission
stage. No costs.
13. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed."
This Court has carefully gone through the award as well as
the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Industrial
Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence, has modified the
punishment awarded to the employee in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. As there was no intention on the part of
the employee to pocket the money of the passengers, this Court
also does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by
the Industrial Tribunal or by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
19.11.2021
ES
