Telangana High Court

Telangana State Road Transport ... vs D.Shankar, And Another on 24 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.573 of 2019


JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of the order

dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.4153 of 2004.

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent

No.1 was subjected to departmental enquiry proceedings

and an order of removal was passed on 31.12.1997. The

respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.56

of 2001 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, and the Labour Court has passed an award on

17.10.2003 setting aside the removal and directing the

Corporation to reinstate the respondent No.1 into service

without back wages but with continuity of service

including notional increments and other attendant

benefits. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the

Labour Court, a writ petition was preferred and the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Against

the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present

writ appeal has been filed.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the a

charge memo was issued on 29.03.1997 and after

holding a departmental enquiry, the respondent No.1 was

held guilty of the misconduct. The Labour Court has

appreciated the entire evidence in the matter and after

taking into account the entire evidence, has arrived at a

conclusion that the findings arrived at by the enquiry

officer are perverse findings. In respect of the charges,

the Labour Court has held that the respondent No.1, at

the most, can be said to be negligent, however no

misconduct was committed by him. The relevant portion

of the award passed by the Labour Court dated

17.10.2003 reads as under:-

"Admittedly the seized tickets are 23 in number whereas the endorsement of (1) on some of the tickets would not suit the contention of the TTIs that they are due amounts. Each ticket is worth Rs.4.50 ps and if anybody purchases the ticket by paying Rs. 5/- the amount due will be 0.50 ps but cannot be Rs.1/-. The Jr. Law Officer contended that this is possible when the petitioner issued these tickets to a batch of two passengers by taking Rs.10/-

note and making an endorsement that Rs. 1/- is due to be paid to the passengers. But if the endorsements on the back of some of the seized tickets is carefully looked into there is no such possibility of two passengers obtaining tickets and the petitioner making endorsement on one ticket. More over due amount can never be Rs.35/- or 0.35 paise, or Rs.85/- or paise 0.85 as contained on two of the tickets. Therefore, the suspicion of the TTIs is completely baseless. At times it is quite possible for the conductor while plucking the tickets that more number of tickets may come into his hand and thereby he is not at all at fault if he replaces them in the block of tickets the help of a rubber band. This is also clearly admitted by C.W.1 in his evidence before the court. Therefore, charge No.1 is completely

baseless and the findings of the enquiry officer thereon are completely perverse and cannot be accepted. But the only finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner was negligent and thereby two of the tickets containing end numbers 122 and 123 are missing appears to be correct. Except that the finding of the enquiry officer that the seized tickets of Rs.4.50 deno. were already issued by the petitioner or that the petitioner kept them for the purpose of reissue has no basis and it is a mere suspicion A mere suspicion cannot be replaced with clear evidence.

Coming to charge No.2 it is complained that the petitioner made an alteration in the S.R. for the ticket block of Rs.4.50 ps deno., from stage Nos.10 to 2 when the bus traveled from Hadapahad to Nizamabad on 1.1.2000. A close perusal of S.R. marked as Ex.M.2 would reveal that the contention of the TTIs as well as the enquiry officer appears to be baseless and incorrect. Normally when the conductors are put on duty on the route buses the S.R. issued to them will be conveniently folded to put in a clip pad. Accordingly the S.R. in Ex.M.2 was folded in such conduction that the fold exactly came in between the lines in column No.3 for noting the Rs.4.50 ps deno tickets for each stage. At stage No.1 Nizamabad when the bus made the last trip on the previous day the last number of Rs.4.50 deno. is "106". After issue of seven tickets the end number came to '113' at stage No.2 in the previous trip. The petitioner also clearly put the number of issues as 7 in the side-by column. Thereafter upto the end of travel on 31.12.99 and until the bus reached Badapahad, last stage the end number continued to be 113. On 1.1.2000 when the bus started at Badapahad also the end number of Rs.4.50 deno is clearly shown as '113'. For stage No.10 also the petitioner clearly put the No. as 113 and in between two ONES the print on the S.R. came showing '0'. Thereafter the petitioner has put continuously the figure 113 in such a manner that '11' '1' came before the fold and '3' came after the fold. He did so upto stage No.3 and at stage No.2 just before the check he has put the entire figure '113' before the fold itself, and for the last stage Nizamabad he has put '113' in ordinary manner. Except that I could find any

eraser or alteration in the S.R. The TTIs have suspected that there is an eraser only on the ground that the petitioner was found with loose tickets tagged with a rubber band to ticket block of Rs.4.50 ps denomination and the mere suspicion would not take the place of proof so as to frame charge No.2 against the petitioner. Thus both the charges against the petitioner are baseless and they are framed only on mere suspicion. Absolutely there is no proof that the petitioner already issued the tickets which were seized from him conductor (petitioner). At the same time I could find any eraser or alteration in the S.R. as concluded by the enquiry officer and as complained by the checking officials. Thus the findings of the enquiry officer on charge No.2 are also perverse and therefore the petitioner is free from fault except that he was negligent in picking the tickets from the ticket block and thereby two tickets in between the serial numbers were lost. This point is accordingly answered.

8. POINT 2: In view of my elaborate discussion on charges framed against the petitioner and my conclusion that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse I have to hold that the second respondent is not at all justified in removing the petitioner from service for no fault of him. This point is accordingly answered.

9. POINT 3: Admittedly whenever any conductor is put on duty he will be given a ticket tray and he shall keep the same tray until he is transferred to someother depot and from time to time he can take the ticket blocks which are wanted for each journey from the concerned ADC with duly opening figures in the S.R. As per the S.R. in Ex.M.2 it is clear that the petitioner opened a new ticket block of Rs.4.50 deno. in his previous trip on 31.12.99 and issued in all 7 tickets from the said block. When the petitioner is expected to pull seven tickets from the block he must take care to see that each ticket is carefully plucked but the physical verification of the seized tickets containing Sl.Nos. 534/188113 to 124 and 534/188125 to 145 would go to prove that the petitioner was negligent in picking the tickets thereby the upper portion of the tickets were completely

torn off giving a scope for suspicion. More over the petitioner lost two tickets with end numbers 122 and 123. Therefore, there is every justification for the checking officials to suspect the conduct of the petitioner in view of the facts of the case and as such the petitioner though is entitled to reinstatement into service cannot be granted back wages, since the framing of charges against him and the action taken against the petitioner on the said charges, was in good faith. This point is accordingly answered

In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of the second respondent dtd. 20.5.2000 is hereby set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages but with continuity of service including notional increments and other attendant benefits. The award is passed accordingly. The award shall come into force U/s. 17-A of

1.D. Act, after 30 days of its publication."

This Court has also carefully gone through the

enquiry report and the award of the Labour Court. It is

certainly a case of perverse findings keeping in view the

evidence adduced before the enquiry officer and

therefore, the Labour Court was justified in directing

reinstatement of the respondent No.1 without back

wages. The learned Single Judge has also rightly

dismissed the writ petition preferred by the employer.

Before this Court also no illegality or irregularity has

been pointed out in the award and therefore, this Court

finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the