Telangana High Court
G.Venkanna vs The Labour Court I And 5 Others on 24 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 2068 of 2023
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order
of removal from service, as illegal, arbitrary and to direct the
respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service with
continuity of service and other consequential benefits including
the backwages and to pass such other order or orders in the
interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily
wage driver in the respondent corporation in the year 2007 and
his services were subsequently regularized with effect from
01.09.2010. It is submitted that while the petitioner was driving
a bus as a conductor-cum-driver and the bus was travelling
from Vijayawada to Hyderabad, there was a check by the
checking officials and it was found that the petitioner has
collected a sum of Rs.380/- instead of Rs.385/- from one
passenger at the boarding point itself, but failed to issue the
ticket. Therefore, the TTI's collected the balance of Rs.5/- from
the passenger and issued a ticket and also issued a charge
TMD,J
memo to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and
submitted that he has collected the correct fare and he was in
the process of issuing the ticket when there was a check by the
TTI's. Therefore, an inquiry was conducted and on the basis of
the inquiry report, holding that the charges are proved against
the petitioner, the petitioner was removed from service. The
petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed
and a revision and also mercy petition, thereafter were also
dismissed. The petitioner thereafter challenged the removal
order before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal also
confirmed the order of dismissal and therefore, the present writ
petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that none of the authorities below have considered the
contentions of the petitioner and have imposed the
disproportionately excessive punishment of removal from
service. It is further submitted that the order of the removal
should be set aside with a direction to pay all consequential
benefits. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon
the Circular issued by the respondents wherein it was provided
that when it was a first time offence, the petitioner ought not to
TMD,J
have been placed under suspension and ought not to have been
removed from service. He placed reliance upon the instructions
issued by the respondent corporation on Job Security for
Employee for this proposition. It is further submitted that
without issuing any training for ticket issuing machines, the
petitioner has been directed to conduct and drive the bus and
therefore, there was a small irregularity in issuing the ticket and
for that offence he should not have been removed from service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed
reliance upon the following judgments in support of his
contentions:
(1) K.B.Lingam Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC Now
TSRTC 1;
(2) APSRTC now TSRTC Vs. G.T.Reddy 2;
(3) S.Durgaiah Vs. APSRTC, D.M.Sangareddy 3;
(4) G.T.Reddy Vs. Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court 4;
(5) E.Chandraiah Vs. Telangana State Road Transport
Corporation, represented by its Managing Director and
Others 5.
1 2023 SCC OnLine TS 1017
2 2022 SCC OnLine TS 2350
3 2022 SCC OnLine TS 225
4 2022 SCC OnLine TS 890
5 2023 SCC OnLine TS 34
TMD,J
5. The respondents, however, have filed a counter
affidavit and submitted that during the enquiry it was proved
that the petitioner has collected money, but not issued ticket
during the course of check and therefore the order of removal
from service was justified and has been confirmed both in the
appeal as well as revision and also by the Industrial Tribunal. It
is submitted that there was no discrepancy in conducting of the
enquiry and therefore, this Court may not go into the said
aspects at this stage. As regards the proportionately of the
punishment, it is stated that the punishment prescribed for
such offences was removal from service and the said
punishment has correctly been imposed on the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that even as per the
instructions of the TSRTC on Job Security for Employees where
the buses are Deluxe, Super Luxury, Rajadhani A/C, Vajra A/C,
Garuda Plus A/C and City A/C type services, irrespective of the
ticket amount and number of ticketless passengers detected,
based on the merits of the case, the conductor/TIM/OMS driver
shall be placed under suspension followed by punishment of
maximum up to removal from service. Even for City Ordinary,
TMD,J
Sub-urban, Mofussil, Metro Express, Metro Deluxe, Pallevelugu,
Mini-Pallevelugu, Semi-Express and Express services, if the
ticket amount is more than twice the minimum fare, irrespective
of number of ticketless passengers, the conductor/TIM driver
shall be placed under suspension and punishment of maximum
up to removal from service may be imposed. The petitioner was
admittedly driving the bus from Vijayawada to Hyderabad.
Therefore, this Court finds that there is no violation of the
instructions in this case of petitioner, who was placed under
suspension initially and subsequently on the basis of enquiry
report, the petitioner has been removed from service.
7. In the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the findings of the Court were that
the imposition of punishment of removal from service was
highly disproportionate to the alleged offences of cash and ticket
irregularities. In this case, this Court finds that the petitioner
had collected a sum of Rs.380/- instead of Rs.385/- and had
not issued the ticket at all to the passenger and therefore, it
cannot be said to be a minor offence committed by the
petitioner. The authorities have considered the plea of the
petitioner, but have not thought at fit to modify the
TMD,J
punishment. However, this Court is of the opinion that the
punishment of removal from service for a first time offence may
not be warranted. But the relevant details are not on record.
Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to permit the
petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents and the
respondents may consider, if it was a first time offence and
reconsider modifying the punishment from the punishment of
removal from service.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with
above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 24.04.2024
bak
TMD,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Dated: 24.04.2024
bak
