The Depot Manager vs R.Narender
2022 Latest Caselaw 5793 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                    AND

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                    WRIT APPEAL No.466 of 2019


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


      Heard Mr. A.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel representing

Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana

State Road Transport Corporation for the appellant.               None has

appeared for respondent No.1/writ petitioner though name of

Ms. S.A.V.Ratnam as counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner

is reflected in the cause list.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

14.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ

Petition No.23856 of 2003 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ

petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition

assailing the legality and validity of the award dated 28.06.2001

passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Godavarikhani (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'Labour 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.466 of 2019

Court') as well as for his reinstatement in service in the

establishment of the appellant with continuity of service and full

back wages.

4. It may be mentioned that on the charge of misconduct

relating to cash and ticket irregularities, respondent No.1 who was

a Conductor in the establishment of the appellant, was imposed

the penalty of removal from service by the disciplinary authority

which was affirmed by the Labour Court. By the order under

appeal, learned Single Judge took the view that punishment of

removal from service was very disproportionate and accordingly

directed the appellant to reinstate the 1st respondent in service as

a fresh Conductor after setting aside the order of removal as well

as award of the Labour Court.

5. On appeal this Court passed an order on 23.11.2021

staying the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge

dated 14.11.2018, which order has since been continued.

6. At the relevant point of time, 1st respondent was

serving as a Conductor in the establishment of the appellant. On

06.08.1997 officials of the appellant carried out a check on the 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.466 of 2019

passenger bus, of which 1st respondent was the Conductor. It was

found that 1st respondent had collected fares from altogether 13

passengers but had failed to issue tickets to them. Thereafter

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.

7. Disciplinary authority framed the following charges

against the 1st respondent:

"1. "For having collected an amount of Rs.2/- each from four (4) passengers and failed to issue tickets who boarded your bus at Bellampally and alighting at Boyapally ex- stage 9 to 10 which is mis-conduct in terms of Reg. No. 28(x) of the APSRTC Employees(conduct) Reg. 1963".

2. "For having collected an amount of Rs.2.50 each from nine(9) passengers (Batches and individuals) and failed to issue tickets who boarded your bus at Bellampally and alighting which is mis-conduct in terms of Reg. No. 28(x) of the APSRTC Employees(conduct) Reg. 1963".

3. "For having intentionally not handedover the SR after completion of your duty along with bud cash at Asifabad Depot with malafied intention which is mis-conduct in terms of Reg. No. 28(xxxii) of the APSRTC, Employees(conduct) Reg. 1963".

4. "For having failed to close the ticket tray Nos. of all denomination up to stage No. 10 and marked as XXX without completing the above ticket issues which is mis-

                                    4                      HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                     W.A.No.466 of 2019

conduct in terms of Reg. No.28(xxxv) of the APSRTC, Employees(conduct) Reg. 1963"."

8. In this connection show cause notice was issued to 1st

respondent on 06.08.1997 under the then Andhra Pradesh State

Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations,

1963 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the '1963 Regulations'). It

is stated that 1st respondent had submitted explanation. In his

explanation, 1st respondent stated that as the bus was getting

late, the passengers had pressurised the 1st respondent to start

the bus before issuing tickets. Passengers had misrepresented

before the checking authority that no tickets were issued to them.

9. It appears that explanation furnished by the 1st

respondent was not accepted by the disciplinary authority

whereafter an inquiry was ordered. On conclusion of the inquiry,

Inquiry Officer submitted report holding that charges framed

against the 1st respondent stood proved. It was thereafter that

disciplinary authority issued the order dated 17.01.1998 removing

the 1st respondent from service.

                                   5                        HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                      W.A.No.466 of 2019

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.01.1998, 1st

respondent raised an industrial dispute by filing a petition under

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

Labour Court. Labour Court vide the award dated 28.06.2001 did

not find any error or infirmity either in the domestic inquiry or in

the order of penalty. Confirming the order of removal from service,

petition filed by the 1st respondent was dismissed.

11. While dismissing the petition of the 1st respondent,

Labour Court examined the evidence on record. As per material

Ex.M-4, there were 47 passengers in the passenger bus at the

time of the checking. It was found that 1st respondent did not

issue tickets to 13 passengers. Therefore, Inquiry Officer held that

charges framed against the 1st respondent stood proved, which

was also accepted by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by

the Labour Court. Labour Court also took the view that

punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the

gravity of the charges.

12. 1st respondent thereafter filed the related writ petition

seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

                                          6                         HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                              W.A.No.466 of 2019

13. By the order dated 14.11.2018 learned Single Judge

allowed the writ petition by directing reinstatement of the 1st

respondent in service as fresh Conductor.

14. Relevant portion of the order dated 14.11.2018 reads

as under:

"6. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties and the nature of the charges leveled against the petitioner, is of the considered view, that the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner is very disproportionate and the Labour Court ought to have examined the case of the petitioner and interfered with the punishment of removal, by applying the proportionality theory and at least, the Labour Court ought to have directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh Conductor. Since the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the respondent- Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh Conductor.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh Conductor, subject to medical fitness, without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits. There shall be no order as to costs."

                                  7                       HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                    W.A.No.466 of 2019

15. From the above, we find that learned Single Judge took

the view that punishment of removal from service imposed on the

1st respondent was very disproportionate to the charges levelled

against him. Learned Single Judge did not question the fact that

the charges levelled against the 1st respondent was proved.

Learned Single Judge proceeded that on the basis of the proven

charges, punishment of removal from service was harsh and

disproportionate. Therefore, learned Single Judge directed

reinstatement of the 1st respondent in service as a fresh

Conductor but without continuity of service and back wages.

16. We are afraid we cannot accept such conclusion

reached by the learned Single Judge which runs contrary to the

evidence and findings on record. It is not the amount involved

which is relevant. The fact that as a Conductor 1st respondent did

not issue tickets to 13 passengers from whom he had taken the

fare amounts to misuse of his office which is certainly a

misconduct. This charge against the 1st respondent was proved in

the domestic inquiry, which finding has also been affirmed by the

Labour Court. No reason has been assigned by the learned Single 8 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.466 of 2019

Judge to differ from the views taken by the disciplinary authority

as well as by the Labour Court.

17. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan

Bihari1, Supreme Court held that amount misappropriated may

be small or large; it is not material. What is relevant is the act of

misappropriation. In such cases, any sympathy shown would be

totally uncalled for and opposed to public policy. This position

has been consistently taken by the Supreme Court. Finally in

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand

Sharma2, after summarising the law, Supreme Court held that the

High Court while dealing with a challenge of similar nature is

under an obligation to give not only reasons but cogent reasons

while reversing findings of fact recorded by a domestic Tribunal.

In the facts of that case, it was categorically held that though

punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct, however in a case of corruption/misappropriation,

quantum being immaterial, the only punishment that can be

imposed is dismissal.

1 AIR 1996 SC 1249
2 (2010)6 SCC 555
                                  9                      HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                   W.A.No.466 of 2019

18. Be that as it may, on due consideration we are of the

view that learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with

the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the

Labour Court.

19. Consequently, we set aside the order of the learned

Single Judge dated 14.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.23856

of 2003 and dismiss the said writ petition. Appeal is accordingly

allowed. No costs.

20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 14.11.2022 KL