The Depot Manager vs A. Madhusudhan Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 5747 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                   W.A.No. 241 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. G.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant-

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation.


2.      On 18.11.2021, notice was issued to the respondent/writ

petitioner. As per memo dated 07.12.2021, notice has been served

upon the respondent. However, there is no representation on

behalf of the respondent.

3. This writ appeal is directed against the order

dated 09.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of

W.P.No.13980 of 2009 filed by the respondent as the writ

petitioner.

4. Respondent as the writ petitioner had filed the related writ

petition assailing the legality and validity of the order

dated 13.03.2007 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal -cum-

::2::

Labour Court, Godavarikhani (briefly 'the Labour Court'

hereinafter) in I.D.No.9 of 2006.

5. Case projected by the respondent before the learned Single

Judge was that he was appointed as a conductor in the

establishment of the appellant in the year 1978. On 12.10.1984,

checking officials of the appellant conducted random check of

various buses of the appellant. In the process, respondent was

found to have indulged in cash and ticket irregularities.

Considering the said act of the respondent as a misconduct,

disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him whereafter,

punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two

years with cumulative effect was imposed vide the order

dated 19.12.1984.

6. Twenty-two years thereafter, respondent filed I.D.No.9

of 2006 before the Labour Court. Learned Labour Court vide the

award dated 13.03.2007 dismissed the same ::3::

7. Two years thereafter, the related writ petition came to be

filed.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due

consideration, learned Single Judge passed the order

dated 09.11.2018 modifying the order of penalty dated 19.12.1984

by replacing the deferment of annual increment for a period of two

years 'with cumulative effect' to 'without cumulative effect and

without monitory benefit'. While passing such order, learned

Single Judge noted that except the present charges, no other

allegations were levelled against the respondent in his entire career.

Therefore, a view was taken that the learned Labour Court ought to

have interfered with the punishment atleast on proportionality

theory.

9. As already noted above, challenging the order of penalty

dated 19.12.1984, respondent filed a petition under

Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the

Labour Court in the year 2006 i.e., after twenty-two years. In the

award dated 13.03.2007, learned Labour Court observed that there ::4::

was inordinate delay of twenty-two years in approaching the

Labour Court. That apart, respondent did not file the statutory

appeal as provided under the Telangana State Road Transport

Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Regulations, 1967.

10. Learned Labour Court also considered the main grievance

expressed by the respondent as to the quantum of punishment.

After perusing the service record of the respondent, it was found

that respondent was punished for 27 times on various charges. The

present charge against the respondent was 'indulging in cash and

ticket irregularity', which is a serious one. Such a charge actually

calls for stiffer penalty. Nonetheless, the disciplinary authority

imposed the lesser punishment of deferment of two annual

increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

Therefore, learned Labour Court declined to entertain the petition

of the respondent.

11. While modifying the penalty imposed by the disciplinary

authority way back on 19.02.1984, we find that learned Single Judge ::5::

did not assign any reasons for such modification of punishment.

On the other hand, observation of the learned Single Judge that

except the present charges there were no other allegations against

the respondent in his entire service career does not appear to be

borne by the record. In the circumstances, order passed by the

learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

12. We therefore set aside the order of the learned Single Judge

dated 09.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.13980 of 2009 and

consequently, dismiss the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.13980 of 2009.

13. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 10.11.2022 LUR