THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.24178 OF 2007
ORDER
This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ, order or direction,
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the award
passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.21 of 2003 dt.24.04.2006 and
consequently to reinstate the petitioner into service with wages and all
other consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the
petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the 2nd respondent
Corporation in April, 1980. In the year 2001 i.e., on 02.02.2001, while
the petitioner was conducting a bus bearing No.AP9Z 3183 on the
route Narsampet-Ponakal, a check was exercised at stage No.9, i.e., at
Kotagandi at about 14.30 hours by the Regional Enforcement Squad,
Warangal. It was noticed that the petitioner had failed to issue ticket
to a lady passenger who boarded the bus at Gangadevipalli and was
bound for Dharmaram, ex-stages 8 to 9/10, even after collecting the
requisite fare of Rs.4/- from her at the boarding point. A charge memo
was accordingly issued for violating the rule 'issue and start' and for
failing to issue tickets and for having closed the ticket tray numbers of W.P.No.24178 of 2007 2
all denominations up to stage No.9 without completing the above
ticket issues, which is a misconduct under Regulation 28(xxxii) of the
APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner
submitted his explanation denying the charges and thereafter, an
enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry report, wherein
the charges against the petitioner were held proved, the disciplinary
authority removed the petitioner from service through its proceedings
dt.24.09.2001. The petitioner immediately approached the High Court,
but the High Court dismissed his case by holding that the petitioner
has to exhaust his remedies. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an
industrial dispute in I.D.No.21 of 2003 and an award was passed on
24.04.2006 upholding the order of removal. Against the award of the
Labour Court, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this
Writ Petition.
3. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent failed to supply
copies of the documents along with the charge sheet and the enquiry
conducted is a false enquiry. According to the petitioner, the enquiry
officer failed to discuss about the points which are in favour of the
petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner had collected fare
from passengers and had issued valid tickets to all passengers at their
respective boarding places and the said lady passenger had boarded
the bus at Machapur, request stage 7/8, and not at stage No.8
Gangadevipally and was issued with ticket of Rs.4/- denomination,
but the said ticket was taken by the TTIs at the time of the check from W.P.No.24178 of 2007 3
the said lady passenger and not from his cash bag and since he
completed the ticket issues, he closed the SR. The allegation of
creating nuisance and using unparliamentary language against the
checking officials was also denied. It was submitted that the 2nd
respondent wantonly created false case against the petitioner due to
old grudge.
4. The Labour Court considered all the facts and has come to the
conclusion that the enquiry was properly conducted and that the
charges against the petitioner were proved. Accordingly, the
punishment of removal from service was confirmed by the Labour
Court, against which the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao,
submitted that Charge No.1 is as vague as it could be and it is the
Circular issued by the Corporation to allow the passengers to board
the bus wherever they hail their hands even at unscheduled places and
the question of violation of the rule of 'issue and start' does not arise.
The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had collected
fare from all the passengers and had issued valid tickets to them at
their respective boarding places and the lady passenger in question
had boarded the bus at Machapur, request stage 7/8, and not at stage
No.8 Gangadevipally and that the ticket of Rs.4/- denomination was
also issued and therefore, the petitioner had not committed any
irregularity and the checking officials wanted to create a false case W.P.No.24178 of 2007 4
against the petitioner for extraneous reasons. It is also submitted that
the passenger's statement was not attested by the petitioner but was
attested by the service driver who clearly stated in the enquiry that his
statement was dictated by the checking officials. Thus, according to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, even the witness of the
respondent Corporation itself did not support the case of the 2nd
respondent. He further submitted that the Labour Court has confirmed
the punishment by holding that the petitioner has failed to give any
spot explanation. He submitted that the said reason cannot be a ground
for confirming the penalty against the petitioner. He placed reliance
upon a judgment of this Court in the case of The District Manager,
A.P.S.R.T.C., Jaggaiahpet Vs. Labour Court, Guntur and
another1. He further submitted that the punishment of removal from
service for the allegation of non-issue of a ticket of Rs.4/- to one
passenger is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence
alleged against him. He therefore sought reinstatement of the
petitioner into service with all attendant benefits and back wages.
6. Sri Mohd. Abdul Quddus, learned counsel representing Sri B.
Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, relied upon the
contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation to
state that the petitioner was working as a Conductor since 10.04.1980
and many a times the petitioner was suspended and was awarded with
1 1978(1) (HC) APLJ 182 W.P.No.24178 of 2007 5
punishments. It was submitted that the petitioner did not cooperate
with the checking officials while discharging their duties and refused
to attest the checked documents and the checking officials obtained
statement from the driver indicating the situation prevailing at that
time. It was submitted that a fair and proper enquiry was conducted
into the charges against the petitioner by following the principles of
natural justice and in accordance with the CCA Regulations. Since the
charges have been proved, the punishment of removal from service is
justified and the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy from this
Court.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the punishment of removal from service is
due to the charges being proved against the petitioner and not because
the petitioner has refused to give his spot explanation. In the enquiry,
the petitioner has participated and the charges have been held to be
proved. The statement of the driver that his statement has been
dictated to him by the checking officials may throw some doubt about
the veracity of his statement at the time of check, but the fact remains
that one passenger was found without a ticket in spite of her making
payment. However, the punishment of removal from service for such
misconduct is highly excessive. This Court cannot go into the past
misconduct of the petitioner as the petitioner has been imposed with
various punishments for the relevant acts of misconduct. Each
misconduct has to be looked at independently and as far as the W.P.No.24178 of 2007 6
misconduct for which the charge sheet was issued is concerned, the
punishment of removal is excessive. In view of the same, this Court
deems it fit and proper to modify the punishment to stoppage of two
increments without cumulative effect and notional reinstatement of
the petitioner into service with continuity of service only for
retirement benefits. So far as wages for the period of removal to his
attaining the age of superannuation is concerned, this Court finds that
the petitioner was aged 56 years at the time when he filed the Writ
Petition in 2007 and was removed from service on 24.09.2001. By the
time of removal, he had already put in nearly 20 years of service.
Therefore, instead of awarding back wages, this Court deems fit and
proper to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees
three lakhs only) which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period
of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
punishment of the petitioner is therefore modified from removal from
service to the stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition
shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.01.2022 Svv
