Telangana High Court

Velagondula Srinivas Died Per Lrs ... vs The Depot Manger on 14 November, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                AND

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

                WRIT APPEAL No.749 of 2019


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


      Heard Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing

Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

for the respondent.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order

dated 03.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge

dismissing Writ Petition No.6001 of 2007 filed by the

appellant as the writ petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition

assailing the award dated 13.10.2004 passed by the

Labour Court, Godavarikhani (briefly referred to hereinafter

as the 'Labour Court') in I.D.No.101 of 2003 and for a 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.749 of 2019

direction to the respondent for his reinstatement in service

with consequential benefits.

4. After filing the appeal, appellant expired on

20.07.2020. Vide order dated 08.07.2022 passed in

I.A.No.1 of 2022, legal heirs of the appellant were brought

on record as appellant Nos.2 to 5.

5. Appellant was appointed as a Conductor in the

establishment of the respondent in the year 1987. His

service was regularised on 20.09.1988. On 17.01.2002

appellant was the Conductor in the bus belonging to the

respondent being bus No.71 travelling in the route

Karimnagar to Vemulawada. At stage No.3 of the return

journey, checking officials of the respondent carried out a

surprise check on the aforesaid passenger bus and noticed

irregularities in cash and tickets. Thereafter the following

charges were framed against the appellant:

"1. For having violated the rule issue correct tickets and start and stage No 1.

                                       3                   HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                     W.A.No.749 of 2019

2. For having reissued the tickets bearing 1; No 074/661994 to 996 of Rs 11.50 ps den E.3 which were already sold and accounted at stage No 8 in SR No; A7/1498446 in previous strip from vemulawada- Karimnagar, to a batch of three passengers who boarded at Karimnagar and bound for Vemulawada ex-stage 01 to 08 duly collecting the requisite fare of Rs; 11.50 each from (total 34.50) at boarding point itself.

3. For having failed to close the SR against stage No 3 without completing the correct issues.

4. For having failed to show schedule/actual, arrival/departure timings at terminal points in SR No A7/1498446.

5. For having not tallying no. of passengers shown in the SR No A7/1498446 with no. of issues in the 4 trip."

6. In this connection, respondent had issued show

cause notice dated 31.01.2002, to which appellant

submitted reply on 12.02.2002. Disciplinary authority was

not satisfied with the reply of the appellant and therefore

decided to hold inquiry. Inquiry Officer was appointed to

conduct inquiry. Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and

thereafter submitted report on 22.03.2002 holding that 4 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.749 of 2019

charges framed against the appellant stood proved. On the

basis of the inquiry report, disciplinary authority issued

order dated 13.05.2002 removing the appellant from

service. Though appellant filed departmental appeal and

thereafter review, those were unsuccessful.

7. Raising an industrial dispute, appellant filed a

petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, bearing I.D.No.101 of

2003. The same was contested by the respondent. By the

award dated 13.10.2004, petition filed by the appellant was

dismissed by the Labour Court holding that there was no

reason to interfere with the decision of the respondent.

8. This was assailed by the appellant before the

learned Single Judge by filing W.P.No.6001 of 2007.

Learned Single Judge observed that appellant could not

point out any glaring illegality or irregularity in the award

passed by the Labour Court. Learned Single Judge

therefore held that award passed by the Labour Court did

not suffer from any irregularity warranting interference.

                                  5                    HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                 W.A.No.749 of 2019

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed vide the order

dated 03.01.2018.

9. Hence the writ appeal.

10. We have carefully perused the materials on

record. We find therefrom that Labour Court had

meticulously analysed the evidence on record and found

that three passengers were travelling in the bus without

ticket. Holding that the punishment imposed was justified,

Labour Court passed the award dated 13.10.2004.

Relevant portion of the award passed by the Labour Court

reads as under:

"6. The petitioner worked as conductor in the respondent corporation. On 17-1-2002 while the petitioner was conducting bus No 71 on route Karimnagar-Vemulawada, chock was exercised by TTIs at stage No 3 Ramulpalli. They have found that the petitioner has violated the rule issue correct tickets and start at stage No 1, to that he had reissued the ticket bearing Nos 074/661994 to 996 of Rs 11.50 den which were already sold and accounted at stage No 8 in the SR No A7/1498446 in the previous 5th trip from Vemulawada - Karimnagar, to a batch of 3 passengers who boarded the bus at Karimnagar and 6 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.749 of 2019

bound for Vemulawada ex stage 1 to 8 duly collecting the requisite fare of Rs 34-50 ps from them at the boarding point itself.

The defense put forth by the petitioner is that the 3 passengers belong to schedule tribe and they were illiterate. Due to fear of the checking officials, the passenger threatened and himself checked the pocket for the tickets and on the floor of the bus. He has not failed it issued tickets to them. The deceptive mode was accepted by the ticket less passengers. The TTIs have framed the above 2 charges. To prove the charges, the respondent filed the SR bearing No A7/1498446, dt17-1-2002 ie marked as Ex M-1. The conductor's statistical return bearing No 6475704 dt 17-1-2002 ie marked as Ex M-2. The passengers statement was marked as Ex M-3. In that they have clearly stated that the conductor had issued them the ticket bearing nos.074/661994 to 996 of rs 11.50 ps. They paid Rs 11.50 ps. Each for ticket ie total Rs.34.50 ps. to the conductor at the boarding place itself. The petitioner attested the above statement was recorded in his presence. In the spot explanation given by the petitioner i.e., marked as Ex.M-4, he stated that he will offer his statement later on. The silence shown by the petitioner at the time of check itself, proved the mis-conduct committed by the petitioner.

7. In the domestic enquiry, the petitioner produced the passenger and his statement was recorded i.e., marked as Ex.m-19. In that, passengers stated that 7 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.749 of 2019

he had told the TTI at the time of check that the conductor had given them those tickets. He changed his version. The first opportunity was given to the petitioner in the form of asking for his spot explanation which is marked as Ex.m-4. In that he was silent and later on he developed the defense and produced the witness before the domestic enquiry/who had spoken the version of the petitioner. It is a clear after-thought effort.

8. The statement of Sri N. M. Mohan, TTI is marked as Ex.m-18. He deposed that he has exercised the check on bus no.71 on 17-1-2002 and detected that conductor had violated the rule correct tickets and start the three ticket bearing nos.074/661994 to 996 of Rs 11.50 ps deno, which were already sold and account in the S.R, No.A7/1498446 at stage no.8 in the previous 5th trip, to a batch of 3 passengers who boarded the bus at karimnagar. The petitioner cross- examined him and obtained the fact that the passengers were sitting in front seat, one was in the middle and one was in the back. But the deposition of the TTI clearly proves that the conductor had reissued the three tickets to the batch of 3 passengers at the place of boarding itself.

9. The 3rd charge framed against the petitioner is that he had failed to close the S.R, against stage no.3, without completing the correct ticket issues. The 4th charge is for having failed to show schedule/actual arrival/departure timing at terminal point in the S.R and the 5th charge is for having not tallying the 8 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.749 of 2019

number of passengers shown in the S.R with number of issues in the 4th trip. These facts are admitted by the petitioner. But in his version they are not grave mistakes. The petitioner had participated in every stage of the enquiry. The S.R are marked as Ex-1 Ex.m-2 which clearly prove facts."

11. Labour Court had also considered the service

record of the appellant and found from the record that he

was awarded punishment of censure on one occasion;

punishment of withholding of annual increments on five

occasions; and punishment of removal from service on

three occasions. Thus appellant was subjected to a series

of disciplinary action during his service. Holding that

being a Conductor of a bus belonging to the State

Transport Corporation, appellant had failed to issue tickets

to three passengers, which is clearly a misconduct, Labour

Court found that charges framed against the appellant

were proved in the domestic enquiry. In the circumstances,

Labour Court declined to grant any relief to the appellant.

12. When this came to be challenged before the

learned Single Judge, learned Single Judge upheld the 9 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.749 of 2019

findings returned by the Labour Court vide the order dated

03.01.2018 in the following manner:

"5. Heard the rival submissions made by the parties. The petitioner could not point out any glaring defects in the award passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court having considered the entire evidence on record declined to exercise the power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. When once the Labour Court gave a finding that the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment of removal was valid, the only aspect, which the Labour Court had to see is as to whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate or not. The Labour Court had gone into the issue as to whether the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment proportionate to the proven misconduct. The Labour Court had considered even the past record of the petitioner and held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not shockingly disproportionate. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any irregularity warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits."