The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Medak ... vs N. Pandari, Medak Dist. Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1411 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                           AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                         WRIT APPEAL No.1009 of 2009

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

        The present writ appeal is arising out of an order, dated

13.07.2007 passed in W.P.No.26695 of 2000 by the learned Single

Judge allowing the writ petition.


        The facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioner in the writ

petition (respondent No.1 herein), while serving as a conductor in

the service of the appellant organisation, on account of cash and

ticket irregularity, was issued a charge sheet, dated 06.04.1994 and

the charges levelled against him are reproduced as under:-

"1. For having failed to observe the rule "Issue and Start" which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg, 1963.

2. For having collected the requisite fare and failed to issue tickets to batch of 11 passengers who boarded the bus at Bidar and found alighting at Santur Railway gate ex-stages 8/7. Hence taken TPT which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg, 1963.

3. For having closed SR at stage No.7 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg, 1963."

The writ petitioner did submit a reply to the charge sheet and

thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed in the matter. The facts

further reveal that the writ petitioner demanded certain documents,

however, the documents were not given to him and the enquiry

officer proceeded ex parte at a later stage. An order was passed

inflicting the punishment of removal on 15.12.1994 and the writ

petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of removal

preferred an Industrial Dispute, i.e., I.D.No.83 of 1995 under

Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour

Court-II, Hyderabad, vide order dated 12.01.1999, dismissed the

petition preferred by the writ petitioner and has held that the

domestic enquiry was valid enquiry. Point No.2 of the Award, dated

12.01.1999 is reproduced as under:-

"Point No.2 : The petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved, the punishment imposing is a disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The respondent resisted the plea, the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. To substantiate the claim of the respondent M.W.1 was examined Ex.M-1 to M-8 (sic) filed. In support of the petitioner claim, W.W-1 examined. Ex.W-1 to W-3 (sic) are marked.

The petitioner submits that the charges levelled against him are not proved, he has not committed ticket irregularities; the passengers boarded the bus at the place of boarding itself a check was exercised. The punishment imposed by the respondent is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The respondent resisted the plea that the petitioner has committed serious ticket irregularities and the petitioner collected the fare from 11 passengers at the boarding point Bidar while they were alighting at Shapoor Railway gate, the ticketless passengers statement was also recorded and the checking officials evidence also support the respondent claim. To substantiate the claim, the respective submissions made by the respondent and petitioner are concerned

M.W-1 - V.V.Rao, who is the checking official was examined. His evidence goes to show that on 28-3-1994 a check was exercised, 11 passengers were travelling without tickets Ex.M-2 is the statement of the passengers. The said statement was also attested by the petitioner. Ex.M-3 (sic) is the spot explanation of the petitioner. On perusal of the Ex.M-3 spot explanation itself discloses that the 11 passengers have boarded the bus at Bidar and the check was exercised at Shapoor tickets for 11 passengers were not issued. Whereas the passengers statement goes to show they paid the fare to the petitioner. On perusal of the statement of Sri B.Rami Reddy, TTI findings of the enquiry officer discloses that the petitioner has collected the fare but, he has not issued tickets. In force of cross-examination W.W.1 admitted that he did not mention in spot explanation that the check was exercised at the place of boarding of 11 passengers but he has admitted that he has not issued tickets. The petitioner has taken inconsistent plea. On perusal of the S.R. itself discloses that the petitioner has violated the rule issue and start and he collected the fare from 11 passengers failed to issue tickets which is serious misconduct and also, the petitioner has closed S.R. at Stage No.7 which is also misconduct as per APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations. The respondent removed the petitioner from service on account of ticket irregularities, committed by the petitioner. The petitioner's representative submits that the removal from the service causes hardship, the petitioner service record is also satisfactory the Section 11A of I.D. Act provision may be invoked by taking into lenient view. The submission made by the petitioner is not sustainable, the petitioner has committed serious ticket irregularities, the punishment imposed removed from service is justifiable. The petitioner also filed an appeal which was also dismissed without notice, the ID is dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed for, the ID is dismissed.

The award shall come into force under Section 17A of ID Act, after one month of the publication of award."

The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the Award came up

before this Court by filing the writ petition and the learned Single

Judge has set aside the Award and has directed reinstatement of

the writ petitioner with continuity of service and all other benefits

notionally, but without any back wages.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single

Judge has not arrived at a conclusion that the principles of natural

justice and fair play are violated, but only on humanitarian

consideration has held that the misconduct was not a serious

misconduct and punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the

guilt of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has held that

the writ petitioner failed to collect the requisite fare and has failed to

issue tickets and it does not mean that there was an intention on

his part to collect money and not to issue tickets.

In the considered opinion of this Court, such type of

appreciation of evidence is not permissible by the High Court in the

present case. The Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have

not found any fault in the domestic enquiry and no procedural

irregularity was noticed in the domestic enquiry nor it has been held

that the principles of natural justice and fair play have been

violated. After conclusion of the domestic enquiry, a show cause

notice was issued to the writ petitioner and he did submit a reply

and thereafter, punishment of removal was inflicted upon him.

In the considered opinion of this Court, cash and ticket

irregularity is certainly a serious charge and by no stretch of

imagination, it could have been held that the punishment of

removal is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged

against him.

In the present case, the writ appeal was filed in the year 2009

and on 04.08.2009, the implementation of the order passed by the

learned Single Judge was stayed only to the extent of awarding of

notional benefits. Meaning thereby, the writ petitioner was

reinstated in service and at present, he is more than 70 years of

age. This Court is of the opinion that the appreciation of evidence as

has been done by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside

and is accordingly set aside. However, as the writ petitioner has

already attained the age of superannuation, who is more than 70

years, the pay and allowances drawn by him shall not be recovered

as he has continued in service on the strength of the interim order

passed by this Court and he will not be entitled for any other

benefits as this Court is affirming the order of removal, dated

15.12.1994.

Resultantly, the writ appeal stands allowed and the order,

dated 13.07.2007, passed in W.P.No.26695 of 2000 by the learned

Single Judge is hereby set aside.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 23.03.2022 pln