G.Srinivasulu S/O G.Narayana, vs The Labour Court Iii,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2804 Tel

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                   WRIT PETITION No.35933 OF 2014

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award, dated 05.11.2013,

in I.D.No.80 of 2012, passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, (for

short 'Labour Court'), as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set

aside the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a

conductor in the year 1990 and his services were regularized on

01.01.1992. While he was working in the 1st respondent depot, he was

issued with a charge sheet, dated 24.06.1995, framing four charges on the

ground of his unauthorized absence, which culminated into his removal

from service and on filing an appeal, the 3rd respondent had ordered to

reinstate the petitioner as a fresh conductor, without continuity of service

and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed

I.D.No.80 of 2012, before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed

vide impugned order. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is

filed.

3. Heard Sri Sadu Rajeswara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, and Ms. D. Sai Mahitha, learned counsel, representing Sri

Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing for the

respondents.

PK,J wp_35933_2014

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that for the

charge sheet issued to the petitioner, he submitted an explanation

specifically pleading that he suffered with loose motions and was unable

to perform his regular duties and produced the medical certificates to

substantiate the same, but the disciplinary authority without considering

the same conducted an enquiry and imposed a punishment of removal

from service without any jurisdiction. It is further contended that the

appellate authority erred in denying the continuity of service to the

petitioner from 01.01.1992 to 20.09.1997 while ordering to reinstate him

into service as a fresh conductor, due to which, the petitioner had lost his

earlier regular service of 5 years 8 months and 19 days. Thus, a total of

seven increments (six years increments and one more increment i.e.,

Family Planning Increment) were taken away from the petitioner. Hence,

the same is disproportionate to the proven charge. In support of his

contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of

this Court in K.C.Narayana V. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderbad

and others 1.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-

Corporation contends that as the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent on

three situations, two charge sheets, dated 20.03.1995, and 24.06.1995,

were issued to him and not being convinced with the explanations

submitted by the petitioner, the respondents ordered an enquiry. It is

1 2007 (5) ALD 416

PK,J wp_35933_2014

further contended that all reasonable opportunities were provided to the

petitioner to defend his case and finally the Enquiry Officer submitted his

report holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. Hence, the

punishment of removal from service was imposed against him vide

proceedings, dated 21.03.1997. It is further contended that against the

order of removal, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was

considered by the 3rd respondent, who ordered to reinstate the petitioner

as a fresh conductor. It is further contended that during his service, his

annual increments were deferred 21 times for the acts of misconduct and

he was censured 7 times. Hence, the Labour Court is justified in denying

the continuity of service to the petitioner from 01.01.1992 to 20.09.1997

while ordering his reinstatement into service as a fresh conductor. In

support of his contentions, learned Standing Counsel relied upon the

decisions of this Court in P. Habeeb Saheb Vs. A.P.State Road

Transport Corporation and Ors., 2 and S. Mariamma Vs. APSRTC,

Hyderabad and Ors. 3.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by both

the parties.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly, the charge sheet,

dated 08.09.1997, was issued to the petitioner for his unauthorized

MANU/AP/0254/1994

3 MANU/HY/0248/2018

PK,J wp_35933_2014

absence from duties from 15.03.1995 to 20.03.1995, 12.06.1995 to

24.06.1995 and 29.01.1997 to 15.03.1997, framing the following charges:

1. "For having absented to your duties un-authorisedly from 15.03.1995 to 20.03.1995 without any intimation or prior sanction of leave, resulting dislocation of services inconvenience caused to the travelling public, besides causing loss of revenues to the Corporation which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(XXVII) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963."

2. "For having absented to your duties un-authorisedly from 12.06.95 to till date without any intimation or prior sanction of leave, resulting dislocation of services inconvenience caused to the travelling public, besides causing loss of revenue to the Corporation, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963."

3. "For having absented to your duties un-authorisedly from 29.01.97 to till date without any intimation without any intimation or prior sanction of leave, resulting dislocation of services inconvenience caused to the travelling public, besides causing loss of revenue to the Corporation, which constitutes mis- conduct under Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Reg.1963."

4. "For having left Headquarters without prior permission of the competent authority which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Reg.1963."

8. The record further discloses that there is no dispute regarding the

manner of conducting enquiry in which the charges were held proved vide

Enquiry Report dated 01.03.1996. Basing on the said Enquiry Report, a

punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner by the

2nd respondent. Thereafter, on filing of an appeal before the

3rd respondent with a specific request to reinstate him into service by

providing him another opportunity to serve the respondent-Corporation

and the 3rd respondent, by taking into consideration the lengthy

explanation submitted by the petitioner, ordered to reinstate him into

service as a fresh conductor without continuity of service and without any

PK,J wp_35933_2014

attendant benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

approached the Labour Court and filed I.D.No.80 of 2012 and the same

was dismissed by the Labour Court observing that "The petitioner has filed

the I.D., U/s.2-A (2) I.D. Act to fix his salary on par with the other

conductors" and held that, "For fixation of salary, raising the I.D. U/s.2-A

(2) of I.D. Act is not maintainable." Thus, it is clear that the petitioner filed

I.D., before the Labour Court questioning the proceedings, dated

08.09.1997, without challenging his original removal order, dated

21.03.1997.

9. In similar circumstances, in K.C. Narayana (1 supra), this Court

held as follows:

"18. in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.J.Paul's case (supra), the earlier judgments of this Court taking a contrary view must be held no longer as good law and as a result the impugned order of the reviewing authority, appointing the petitioner as a conductor afresh, must necessarily be set aside and the matter remanded to the 2nd respondent for his consideration on the question of penalty.

19. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent is, accordingly, set aside and he is directed to examine the records and determine the approximate punishment to be imposed on the petitioner strictly in accordance with the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. Needless to state that, since the petitioner has been continuing pursuant to the earlier order of the Reviewing Authority to appoint him afresh as a Conductor, status quo as on today shall continue till final orders are passed by the 2nd respondent on the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner herein."

10. Further, in case of P. Habeeb Saheb (2 supra), a Division Bench of

this Court observed as follows:

PK,J wp_35933_2014

"5. The order passed by the Regional Manager consists of two parts. The first part relates to the confirmation of the order of removal. The second part relates to a direction for appointment as a fresh candidate. The order of removal is no bar for appointment as a fresh candidate. The Regional Manager has clearly stated that on compassionate grounds a direction has been issued to appoint the employee as a fresh candidate. So long as the order of punishment stands, it cannot be said that the reviewing authority had either modified the order of punishment or in any other way interfered with it. So long as the order of removal stands, question of claiming the benefit of his past service because of his appointment as a fresh candidate will not arise. In those circumstances, the decisions relief on by the learned counsel have no application to the facts of this case. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge."

11. Similarly, in the case of S. Mariamma (3 supra), a learned Single

Judge observed as follows:

"In Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool's case (supra), which relates to a similar case, a learned Judge of this Court happened to extract all the relevant decisions including the K.C.Narayana's case (supra) and applied the legal position of the earlier decisions to the case on hand. In that case the learned Judge found that the reviewing authority modified the punishment and ordered reinstatement of driver afresh as a casual driver. The learned Judge observed that such an order passed by the reviewing authority fell foul of the statutory regulations particularly Regulation 8(i) thereof and the law laid down by this Court. A close scrutiny of the above judgment would show that in that case the learned Judge having observed the reviewing authority using the words "orders are modified", held that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was modified by the reviewing authority and such modification was against Regulation 8(i). In my considered view, the observation of the learned Judge is that if the fresh appointment ordered by the reviewing authority did not amount to modification of the earlier punishment and it was an appointment afresh, such order of the reviewing authority might have come under the ratio in P.Habeeb Saheb v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad, MANU/AP/0254/1994 : 1995 (1) ALT 553 (DB)."

PK,J wp_35933_2014

12. In the present case, admittedly, the appellate authority, by taking

into consideration the request of the petitioner to provide him another

opportunity to serve the respondent-Corporation with devotion and on

perusing his personal records, has taken a lenient view and ordered to

reinstate the petitioner as a fresh conductor.

13. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order

warranting interference of this Court and the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed as devoid of merits.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition,

shall stand closed. No costs.

______________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 25.09.2023 GSP