N Gangadhar vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc/Tsrtc,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2300 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

               WRIT PETITION No.20794 of 2018

ORDER :

Challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated

22.01.2018 passed by Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.61 of

2015.

2. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Kesamsetty learned counsel for

petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for

TSRTC. Perused the record.

3. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a

Conductor in TSRTC on 10.01.2008 and his services were

regularized with effect from 01.09.2010. On 06.05.2014, while he

was conducting the bus service from Nizamabad to Kanigiri, a

check was conducted by the checking officials at Ibrahimpatnam

and a Memo was issued to him alleging that he collected fare from

two passengers who boarded the bus at Nizamabad at the rate of

Rs.695/- each but issued tickets worth of Rs.790/- only instead of

Rs.1,390/-. The petitioner explained to the TTIs. that he issued

tickets in combination to both the passengers individually viz., 6

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

tickets of Rs.100/-, 1 ticket of Rs.70/-, 1 ticket of Rs.20/- and 1

ticket of Rs.5/-. It is stated that the checking officials have

obtained the check documents in forcible manner and that the

statement of the passenger was recorded as dictated by the TTIs.,

after obtaining the thumb impression of passenger on blank paper

and that the petitioner's statement was also obtained as per the

version of TTIs., which are in violation of checking Rules

prescribed in Chapter No.79 of TSRTC Operational Manual and

Circulars issued by the RTC from time to time. It is also his case

that had the checking officials verified the SR and the tickets

issued, the same would have been tallied, as he issued 61 tickets of

Rs.100/- denomination, which include the tickets of the two

passengers in question. The petitioner was kept under suspension

vide order dated 17.05.2014 and a charge sheet was also issued on

the same day with the charges as under:

"1. For having violated the rule 'issue and start' which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(vi)

(a) & (b) of APSRTC (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

2. For having collected Rs.1,390/- from a batch of 2 passengers who boarded your bus at Nizamabad and bound for Kanigiri ex-stage 1 to 22 and issued Ticket No.156/414249 to 254 of Rs.600/-

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

T.No.121/296065 to 853 of Rs.140/- No.758/117852 to 853 of Rs.40/- No.11/174254 to 285 of Rs.10/- denomination i.e. less of Rs.600/- worth of tickets were not issued while performing duty on route Nizamabad-Kanigiri on 06.05.2014 which constitute misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963."

4. On receipt of the charge sheet, the petitioner had submitted

his explanation, and later, an inquiry was ordered into those

charges. It is stated that the inquiry officer has conducted the

inquiry prejudicial to his interest and no independent evidence was

adduced in the inquiry in support of the charges and ultimately

submitted a report that the petitioner did not issue the 6 tickets of

Rs.100/- denomination. Basing on the said report, the petitioner

was removed from service.

5. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the

petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis on

10.01.2008 and subsequently his services were regularized from

01.09.2010. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have given

the four earlier instances relating to involvement of petitioner in

cash and ticket irregularities and the punishments imposed. It is

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

stated that the petitioner has once again involved in cash and ticket

irregularity while conducting Bus No.AP-32-Z-0060 on

Nizamabad-Kanigiri route on 06.05.2014 by collecting a total

amount of Rs.1390/- from a batch of two passengers but issued

tickets worth Rs.790/- only and thus misappropriated an amount of

Rs.600/-. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension;

charges were framed against him; inquiry was conducted by

following due procedure; petitioner was given opportunity to

defend himself, which he failed to avail; inquiry report was

furnished to the petitioner to submit his objections on the same and

ultimately, it was established that the charges levelled against the

petitioner were proved. Accordingly, a show cause notice for

removal dated 28.08.2014 was issued to the petitioner but as the

petitioner did not put-forth any valid points to re-consider the

proposed punishment, he was removed from service vide

proceedings dated 02.09.2014. Since the appeal and review

preferred by the petitioner are rejected, the petitioner has preferred

I.D.No.61 of 2015 before Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, which was

also dismissed by order dated 22.01.2018. It is stated that the

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

Labour Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, has

upheld the orders removing the petitioner from service and there

are no grounds to interfere with the same. Accordingly,

respondents have prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the

Labour Court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence

before it and come to a different conclusion than that of the inquiry

officer and the disciplinary authority, but such exercise was not

done by the Labour Court. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the

impugned Award.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents, on the other

hand, contended that the petitioner was removed from service on

the proven misconduct, which was approved by the appellate and

revisional authorities and it was further approved by the Labour

Court by way of well-reasoned impugned Award. Hence, there are

no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court and

the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved

in cash and ticket irregularity while conducting the bus from

Nizamabad to Kanigiri, as he collected a total fare of Rs.1,390/-

but issued tickets worth Rs.790/- only, and thus, misappropriated

the amount of Rs.600/-. On noticing the same during the course of

check, the Ticket Inspectors recorded the passenger's statement,

which was attested to be true, by the petitioner. The passengers

categorically stated that they boarded the bus at Nizamabad and

bound for Kanigiri and that they tendered Rs.1,390/- to the

petitioner towards fare for two persons, but they were issued short

of tickets worth Rs.600/- and they came to know about the same

when the checking officials checked the bus. The said statement

was recorded in the very presence of petitioner and he endorsed the

said statement to be correct. After making such endorsement, it is

not open to the petitioner to contend that his endorsement was

obtained forcibly. Further, in his spot explanation to the charge

memo, the petitioner has submitted that he issued tickets worth

Rs.790/- only instead of Rs.1,390/- to the two passengers, as there

was galata in the bus with regard to the seats among the

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

passengers. Thus, the petitioner has accepted the illegality and

pleaded for mercy. As rightly observed by the Labour Court, if

really there was no such irregularity or illegality on his part, there

was no necessity for the petitioner to allow the checking officials to

take TPTs. from his tray and further, he can protest to endorse the

passenger's statement. Further, if the petitioner has really issued

the 6 tickets of Rs.100/- denomination for the balance amount of

Rs.600/- as contended by him, he could have shown the serial

numbers of those tickets. On one hand, he contended that he could

issue tickets worth Rs.790/- only to the two passengers due to the

galata in the bus and on the other hand, he contend that he has

issued tickets for the total amount of Rs.1,390/-.

9. Further, it is to be seen that during the course of inquiry, the

statement of the ticket checking official by name B.R.Chander was

recorded in the presence of the petitioner and he deposed about the

illegality committed by the petitioner. Inspite of giving

opportunity, the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, did

not cross-examine the said witness and thus, the statement of the

ticket checking official remained unchallenged. Even when the

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

petitioner was examined during the course of inquiry, he deposed

nothing in defence, except asking the inquiry officer to consider his

explanation submitted to the charge sheet.

10. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment

of this Court in S.L.Narsaiah v. Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad and another 1, wherein, the

order removing the petitioner from service was set aside on the

ground that neither the passengers nor the persons connected with

the check were examined. This judgment is not applicable to the

facts of the present case, as in the case on hand, the statement of

passenger was recorded in the presence of petitioner, which was

also attested by the petitioner himself and the statement of

checking official was also recorded in the presence of petitioner

during the course of inquiry, but he did not choose to cross-

examine the said checking official to rebut his evidence.

11. In another judgment of this Court relied on by the learned

counsel for petitioner in the case of S.V.Suryanarayana v.

2011 (1) ALD 713

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director and others 2, when

there were contradictory statements by the passengers and when

such passengers were not examined during the course of inquiry,

this Court set aside the orders of Labour Court. This judgment is

also not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in this case,

the statement of passenger was recorded in the presence of

petitioner and the petitioner himself has endorsed such statement of

passenger to be true. Further, the petitioner has also not

cross-examined the ticket checking official during the course of

inquiry.

12. In another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for

petitioner in the case of A.V.Swami v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Warangal and another 3, this Court set aside the

order of the Labour Court and remanded the matter for fresh

consideration on the ground that lot of emphasis was placed on the

past service of the petitioner while passing the order. However, in

the present case, the order of removal was upheld by the Labour

2016 (2) ALT 26

1990 (1) LLN 648

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

Court basing on the entire material on record, and hence, this

judgment is also not helpful to the case of the petitioner.

13. In another judgment of this Court relied on by the learned

counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.30772 of 2010, dated 03.10.2018,

there was shortage of cash compared to the tickets sold and when

the same was noticed after the bus was returned to the Depot, the

petitioner therein was removed from service as he failed to remit

such amount on the same day. In such circumstances, this Court

directed to reinstate the petitioner therein into service as a fresh

Conductor subject to medical fitness without continuity of service,

without back wages and other attendant benefits. This judgment is

also not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as in the present

case, it was not the case of shortage of cash noticed after reaching

the Depot, but the irregularity of collecting cash and not issuing

tickets has come to light during the check conducted by the

officials.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered

view that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the

Labour Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

JS, J W.P.No.20794 of 2018

15. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

Date: 13.09.2023

ajr