Telangana High Court
V.Shivanandam vs The Depot Manager on 5 December, 2023
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 16284 OF 2009
ORDER:
Award dated 31.03.2006 in I.D.No. 143 of 2004 on
the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani
is sought to be set aside by way of this Writ Petition. A
consequential direction is also sought to respondent Depot
Manager to reinstate petitioner into service with all benefits
including full backwages.
2. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as
Conductor in the respondent Corporation in 1988. On
10.04.2004, while he was on duty on route Utnoor-
Kagazanagar-Adilabad, a surprise check was exercised at stage
No. 17, a charge memo was issued and thereafter, was placed
under suspension. Charge sheet was issued on 27.04.2004
alleging cash and ticket irregularities. Questioning the said
charge sheet, Writ Petition No. 8841 of 2004 was filed, which by
order dated 05.05.2004, was dismissed with a direction to the
respondent to conduct departmental enquiry after considering
the explanation submitted by petitioner. However, the
respondent without considering the explanation, got the enquiry
conducted. A show cause notice was issued on 06.08.2004 for
which petitioner submitted explanation requesting to consider
statements of bus driver and independent witnesses,
passengers, who were examined during enquiry. The
respondent, however, without considering the same, passed the
order of removal dated 16.08.2004. Petitioner is stated to have
preferred Appeal unsuccessfully.
Questioning the order of removal, petitioner raised
the subject I.D. mainly on the ground of validity of domestic
enquiry. The Tribunal by order dated 31.10.2006 dismissed the
Dispute holding that domestic enquiry was validly conducted.
3. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated by the
respondent Corporation that petitioner was engaged as a daily
wage conductor with effect from 17.11.1987, later his services
were regularised in the post of Conductor with effect from
01.07.1988. It is their case that earlier, he involved in serious
cash and ticket irregularities and was removed from service on
13.12.1991. Through Award in I.D.No. 35 of 1992 dated
18.02.1994 on the file of Labour Court, Godavarikhani, he was
reinstated into service as a fresh conductor. Second time also,
he involved in serious cash and ticket irregularities on
27.02.1995 and was removed from service on 15.06.1995.
Through Award dated 23.06.2000 in I.D.No. 95 of 1996 on the
file of Labour Court, Godavarikhani, he was again reinstated
into service.
It is stated that while petitioner was discharging
duties on route Kagaznagar - Adilabad on 10.04.2004, a check
was exercised and certain cash and ticket irregularities were
detected, for which charge memo was issued and petitioner
having acknowledged the same, did not submit any explanation.
Therefore, charge sheet was issued on 27.01.2001, duly placing
him under suspension. The disciplinary authority ordered
domestic enquiry to be conducted into the charges. Meanwhile,
petitioner submitted his reply on 17.05.2004 along with a copy
of order of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ
Petition No. 8841 of 2004. In the said Writ Petition, it was held
that charge sheet and suspension order issued by the
respondent does not suffer from any legal infirmity which
warrants interference and accordingly, Writ Petition was
dismissed with a direction to respondent to conduct
departmental enquiry after considering the explanation
submitted by him within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of the said order and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law. As the said explanation was found to be
unsatisfactory, enquiry into the charges was directed to be
initiated.
Petitioner having received enquiry notice,
participated in the enquiry and Deputy Superintendent (Traffic)
of Utnoor and Ch. Balaji, driver of Utnoor Depot were examined
in support of the charges in his presence. He also availed the
opportunity of cross-examination of management witnesses and
produced A.Sudhrshan, to support his case. Petitioner satisfied
with the manner in which enquiry was conducted. Based on the
oral and documentary evidence, Enquiry Officer held that
petitioner is guilty of charge levelled against him. Thereafter, the
disciplinary authority addressed letter daed 17.07.2004 and
27.07.2004 to petitioner calling for his objections on the enquiry
duly enclosing proceedings thereof for which he submitted
comments on 06.08.2004. The Disciplinary Authority imposed
the penalty of removal from service dated 16.08.2004, duly
issuing show cause notice dated 06.08.2004. Though petitioner
submitted reply, he did not put-forward any fresh points. It is
stated that petitioner availed the remedy of Appeal and Review
and both of them were rejected.
4. Heard Sri R. Mangulal, learned counsel for
petitioner as well as Sri A. Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for Corporation.
5. Though learned counsel for petitioner vehemently
contended that enquiry was not properly conducted, drawing
attention to the averments in the counter, Corporation could
prove that domestic enquiry was held validly and there is no
point to interfere with the Award on that aspect. The material
available on record shows that the domestic enquiry was
conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and
there was no denial of opportunity to petitioner. The Tribunal
also came to the conclusion that findings of enquiry is based on
evidence and misconduct alleged was proved.
6. Next coming to award of punishment, charge
alleged against petitioner is that having collected Rs.21/- from
three passengers at Rs.7/- each who boarded bus at Jainoor
and bound for Keremeri ex-stages 17 to 21, re-issued three
tickets to them of Rs.7/- denomination which were already sold
at stage No. 13 and accounted for in STAR document which
amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulation No. 28(xxiii) of
APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963. Petitioner
altered and manipulated the words "Jainoorelo" as "Ex-roadlo'
to escape from the charge and cheated Corporation. He failed to
give his spot examination till date which also amounts to
misconduct under the above Regulations. The said charge was
supported by the passengers statement and spot explanation of
conductor up to the boarding stage of these passengers. By
doing so, he not only cheated passengers but also Corporation
and misappropriated amounts.
7. Time and again, this Court has been observing that
respondent is a state-owned Corporation which is meant for
commuting public. If conductors / employees are allowed to
misappropriate the amounts, Corporation will suffer adversely
as it exists on the revenue generated therefrom.
8. In this case, charge against petitioner is that he re-
cycled the tickets. The material on record also shows that
tickets have been re-issued as per SR and also passengers'
statement which clearly depicts the misconduct on the part of
conductor. The Tribunal while exercising discretion under
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputed Act considered the past
record of petitioner. As averred in the counter, earlier to the
subject check, petitioner was removed from service twice and
reinstated thereafter through intervention of the Tribunal.
Though petitioner argued before the Tribunal that his past
conduct should not be taken into consideration, by relying on
the judgment in Nara Goud v. I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Warangal (1996(3) ALT 648 D.B.), in the same judgment, it was
held that a person who approaches the Court with false plea
should not be entitled to any relief. The Tribunal had elaborately
discussed the material before it and concluded that if check was
not done, he would have misappropriated the money without
depositing into the Corporation. In view of the above, this Court
cannot take any lenient view and substitute its opinion with
that of the disciplinary authority. The Writ Petition is therefore,
liable to be dismissed.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
05th December 2023
ksld
