The Depot Manager vs S. Eashwaraiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 5749 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                   W.A.No. 435 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 and Ms. B.Sapna

Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2018

passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of WP.No.15172

of 2002 filed by the respondent as the writ petitioner.

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

petition questioning the award dated 28.08.2000 passed by the

Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani (briefly

'the Labour Court' hereinafter) affirming the penalty imposed on

the respondent i.e., withholding of two annual increments with

cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as not on

duty.

::2::

4. We may mention that petitioner was appointed as a driver in

the establishment of the appellants in the year 1971.

On 14.04.1995, prohibition and excise officials checked the bus

which was being driven by the respondent. The bus was

proceeding to Karimnagar from Mumbai. In the course of surprise

check, it was found that the bus was carrying six bottles of liquor in

contravention of the prohibition policy which was then prevalent in

the State of Andhra Pradesh. Following disciplinary proceedings,

penalty of removal from service was imposed on the respondent

on 31.07.1995.

5. Respondent preferred appeal before the appellate authority

under the then Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967

(briefly 'the Regulations' hereinafter). In appeal, the appellate

authority modified the penalty by substituting removal from service

with the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with

cumulative effect. On such penalty, respondent was directed to be

reinstated in service. As against this, respondent filed a petition ::3::

under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i.e.,

I.D.No.173 of 1997 before the Labour Court.

6. In the meanwhile, respondent was arrested in connection

with the aforesaid incident and thereafter prosecuted in

C.C.No.1038 of 1996 on the file of Special Judicial First Class

Magistrate (Excise), Karimnagar. Subsequently, he was acquitted of

the charge vide the judgment and order dated 23.01.1998.

7. Labour Court vide the award dated 28.08.2000 declined to

interfere with the modified penalty imposed on the respondent.

8. It was thereafter that the related writ petition came to be

filed. Learned Single Judge took the view that Labour Court failed

to consider the provisions of the Regulations and that it would

meet the ends of justice if the penalty was modified to one without

cumulative effect. Accordingly, the order was passed

on 17.12.2018.

9. From the materials on record, we find that the liquor bottles

were seized from the bus bearing registration No.AP9Z 6262 which ::4::

was being driven by the respondent. There are discrepancies in the

evidence on record as to the seizure of liquor bottles. While Exhibit

M.12- explanation to the chargesheet reveals that liquor bottles

were seized from the driver's seat, Ex.M.16- statement of the

conductor reveals that the liquor bottles were found after two seats

behind the seat of the conductor.

10. Be that as it may, we are of the view that even the modified

penalty imposed by the appellate authority appears to be harsh and

disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct. That

apart, to treat the period of suspension as not on duty would

amount to break in service of the respondent and the same has

been rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge.

Therefore, the order of the learned Singe Judge modifying the

punishment of deferment of two annual increments 'with

cumulative effect' to that of 'without cumulative effect but without

any monetary benefit' is just, proper and adequate. We see no

reason to interfere with the same.

11. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

::5::

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

dismissed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

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