[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs Md. Jani Pasha on 2 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.1497 of 2025
DATE: 02.04.2026
Between:
The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 others
....Appellants
And
Md. Jani Pasha and another
....Respondents
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation for the appellants; Sri
V.Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused
the record.
2. This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, assails the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.5447 of 2018. By the said order, the learned
Single Judge set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Godavarikhani, (for short 'the Tribunal') dated
16.10.2017 in I.D.No.42 of 2014. The Tribunal by the said award had
upheld the removal of the respondent-workman from service and
directed the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Corporation') to reinstate the respondent with
continuity of service and all consequential notional benefits, but
without backwages.
Factual matrix (in brief)
3. The respondent No.1 was initially engaged as a Contract Driver
with the appellant-Corporation on 03.03.2008 at Barkatpura Depot
and was subsequently appointed on regular time scale w.e.f.,
01.09.2010. During the course of his employment, respondent No.1
was entrusted with duties not only as a driver but also as a conductor
under the One-Man Service (OMS) system on Hi-Tech buses equipped
with a Ticket Issuing Machine (TIM). The respondent No.1 did not
have an unblemished service record, having earlier been censured in
a Cash & Ticket (C&T) irregularity case dated 03.01.2012.
4. On 17.09.2013, respondent No.1 was operating a Hi-Tech bus on
the route from Godavarikhani to Hyderabad under the One Man
Service system. At the time when the vehicle reached Godavarikhani
Bus Station (Stage No.1), the bus was subjected to a surprise check
by the officials of the Regional Enforcement Squad, Nizamabad.
During the course of such inspection, it was detected that two
passengers, who had boarded the bus at Stage No.4 (Karimnagar) and
travelling to Stage No.1 (Godavarikhani), were travelling without valid
tickets.
5. Upon enquiry by the checking officials, the said passengers
categorically stated that they had paid the requisite fare of Rs.128/-
(Rs.64/- each) to respondent No.1, but respondent No.1 had failed to
issue tickets to them. The appellant Corporation contended that the
said act constituted a serious instance of cash and ticket irregularity,
involving collection of fare without issuance of tickets, thereby
indicating an intention to misappropriate the Corporation's revenue.
6. During the course of the said inspection, the checking officials
recorded contemporaneous statements of the passengers (Ex.M-2),
wherein the passengers reiterated that they had paid the fare but
were not issued tickets. The respondent No.1 also furnished a spot
explanation (Ex.M-3), which was recorded at the time of the check,
wherein respondent No.1 admitted that he had collected the fare from
the said passengers but failed to issue tickets stating that the
omission occurred as he forgot. The fare chart report (Ex.M-4)
prepared by the checking officials reflected that the fare was collected
(FC), and the TIM data revealed discrepancy between the number of
passengers and tickets issued.
7. In view of the aforesaid irregularities, respondent No.1 was
placed under suspension on 30.09.2013 and a chargesheet was
issued framing the following charges:
i) Violation of the prescribed operational rule "issue, close and
start" of the bus, constituting misconduct under Regulation
No.28 (xxxii) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct)
Regulations, 1963; and
ii) Collection of fare amounting to Rs.128/- from two passengers
without issuing tickets, constituting misconduct under
Regulation No.28 (vi)(a), (xv) and (xxxii) of the said
Regulations.
8. The respondent No.1 submitted his explanation dated
30.10.2013 denying the charges. Not being satisfied with the
explanation, the disciplinary authority ordered a domestic enquiry.
The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry. During the course
of enquiry, although the passengers resiled from their earlier
statements and deposed that they had not paid any fare to
respondent No.1, the Enquiry Officer, upon appreciation of the entire
evidence on record, including the statements recorded at the time of
check, respondent No.1's own spot explanation and the documentary
evidence, found the charges proved. The Enquiry Officer concluded
that respondent No.1 had collected the fare but failed to issue tickets,
thereby attempting to misappropriate the appellant-Corporation's
revenue.
9. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority
issued a show cause notice dated 22.03.2014 proposing the penalty of
removal from service. After considering the explanation submitted by
respondent No.1 and upon independent assessment of the material on
record, the Depot Manager, Godavarikhani Depot, passed proceedings
dated 01.04.2014 imposing the punishment of removal from service.
10. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before
the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (DCTM), Karimnagar, which came to
be rejected on 24.05.2014; his review petition before the Regional
Manager, Karimnagar, was rejected on 03.07.2014; and also his
review appeal before the Executive Director, Karimnagar Zone, was
rejected on 04.09.2014, thereby confirming the order of removal.
11. Challenging the order of removal, respondent No.1 raised an
industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, (for short 'ID Act'). During the proceedings, respondent No.1
filed a memo under Section 11-A of the ID Act stating that he was not
disputing the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue
and requested the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter based on the
material available on record.
12. The Labour Court, upon consideration of the entire evidence,
including Exs.W-1 to W-5 and Exs.M-1 to M-27, and relying on the
documentary evidence and TIM data, dismissed the industrial dispute
by award dated 16.10.2017, holding that:
i) respondent No.1 had collected fare without issuing tickets;
ii) the charge of misappropriation stood proved; and
iii) the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to
the gravity of misconduct, even though the amount involved
was small, as the misconduct involved breach of trust and
integrity.
13. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed the underlying writ petition
challenging the said award. The learned Single Judge, by order dated
20.06.2025, allowed the writ petition, set aside the award passed by
the Tribunal, and directed reinstatement of respondent No.1 into
service with continuity of service and notional benefits, but without
back wages, holding inter alia that the Tribunal had erred in
appreciating the evidence, particularly in relation to the testimony of
the passengers and alleged procedural lapses in the enquiry.
14. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Corporation has
preferred the present writ appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants
15. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, assailed the
impugned order and has advanced submissions as under:
i) That the learned Single Judge has exceeded the permissible
limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by virtually acting as an appellate authority and re-
appreciating the evidence on record. The Tribunal, upon a
detailed and reasoned consideration of the entire material
evidence, including the contemporaneous documents marked as
Ex.M-2 (passengers' statements), Ex.M-3 (spot explanation of
the respondent) and Ex.M-4 (fare chart report), had
categorically held that the initial version of the passengers was
truthful and that their subsequent retraction during the
enquiry was an afterthought intended to favour the delinquent
workman.
ii) That the Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A
of the ID Act, had consciously examined the proportionality of
the punishment imposed on the respondent. The Tribunal,
having regard to the nature of misconduct, namely collection of
fare without issuance of tickets and consequent attempt to
misappropriate Corporation revenue, expressly held that the
misconduct was grave and warranted no leniency.
iii) That respondent No.1 was not a first-time offender. The record
clearly discloses that he had earlier been censured vide order
dated 07.05.2013 for a Cash & Ticket irregularity committed on
03.01.2012. The said aspect assumes significance in assessing
the overall conduct and integrity of the respondent and in
determining whether any leniency could be extended.
iv) That the respondent No.1's own spot explanation (Ex.M-3),
recorded contemporaneously at the time of check, contains a
clear and unequivocal admission that he had collected the
requisite fare from the two passengers but failed to issue
tickets. The said admission, being voluntary and
contemporaneous, carries substantial evidentiary value. The
subsequent retraction or change of version by respondent No.1
during the course of enquiry was rightly disbelieved by the
Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal as an afterthought.
v) That the appellant-Corporation is a public utility undertaking
entrusted with the responsibility of providing transport services.
Misappropriation of Corporation revenue, even if involving a
small amount, constitutes a grave misconduct as it strikes at
the root of the trust reposed in the employee. In such
circumstances, reinstatement of respondent No.1 found guilty
of such misconduct would send a wrong signal, erode discipline
within the organization and be contrary to public interest.
Submissions on behalf of respondent No.1-Workman
16. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the
impugned order and has advanced his submissions as under:
i) That the two passengers who were allegedly found without
tickets, during the course of domestic enquiry has deposed that
they had not paid any fare to respondent No.1 and that their
earlier statements were obtained under threat and coercion by
the checking officials. The Tribunal failed to give due weight to
this material evidence and wrongly preferred the earlier
statements over sworn testimony. Thus, the learned Single
Judge rightly held that the findings of the Tribunal were
perverse.
ii) That the checking officials did not verify the cash balance
available with respondent No.1 at the time of check. In cases
involving allegations of collection of fare without issuance of
tickets, verification of cash is a crucial and necessary step to
establish excess collection or misappropriation.
iii) That the alleged misconduct pertains to a trivial sum of
Rs.128/- and that respondent No.1 had put in approximately
14 years of service. The punishment of removal from service is
grossly disproportionate to the nature of the allegation. The
Tribunal, though vested with wide powers under Section 11-A of
the ID Act, failed to exercise its jurisdiction to mould the relief
appropriately.
iv) That the alleged past censure dated 07.05.2013 was only in
respect of a minor infraction and does not constitute a serious
or habitual misconduct warranting denial of leniency. Further,
respondent No.1 was regularized only in the year 2010 and does
not have any adverse record of a grave or repeated nature so as
to justify the extreme penalty of removal from service.
17. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and
perused the material on record.
Consideration by this Court
18. It is pertinent to note that the writ Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit
as an appellate authority over the findings of fact recorded by the
Tribunal. The power of judicial review is confined to examining
whether the impugned award suffers from an error of law apparent on
the face of the record, or is based on no evidence, or is vitiated by
perversity or irrationality. The writ Court cannot reappreciate the
evidence to substitute its own conclusions for that of the Tribunal,
particularly where the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction under
Section 11-A of the ID Act.
19. In the present case, respondent No.1 filed a memo under
Section 11-A of the ID Act expressly stating that he was not disputing
the validity of the domestic enquiry and requested that the matter be
decided on the basis of material available on record. This concession
circumscribed the scope of adjudication before the Tribunal.
Therefore, the Tribunal was required to examine whether the findings
of the Enquiry Officer were supported by evidence and whether the
punishment imposed was proportionate. It was not required to
undertake a de novo enquiry unless the findings were shown to be
perverse.
20. It is to be noted that the Tribunal, in its award, analysed the
documentary evidence on record, including the statements of the
passengers recorded at the time of check (Ex.M-2), the respondent
No.1's spot explanation (Ex.M-3), and the fare chart report (Ex.M-4).
It noted that the passengers had, at the earliest point of time, stated
that they had paid the requisite fare and that no tickets were issued.
The subsequent retraction during the enquiry was treated as an
afterthought, particularly in view of the surrounding circumstances
and the contemporaneous material on record. The Tribunal also took
note of the discrepancy reflected in the TIM data, namely that tickets
were issued to 15 passengers, whereas 17 passengers were found
travelling, thereby supporting the charge. Further, the Tribunal
observed that it is not uncommon for passengers to resile from earlier
statements in order to support an employee out of sympathy,
especially when the employee faces loss of employment. However, the
learned Single Judge, placed reliance on the subsequent statements
of the passengers recorded during the enquiry and held that the
Tribunal erred in disbelieving the respondent No.1's version. Such an
approach amounts to reappreciation of evidence, which is
impermissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The findings recorded by the Tribunal were based on
evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or unsupported by the
record. In such circumstances, interference with the award was not
warranted.
21. It is relevant to note that respondent No.1's own spot
explanation (Ex.M-3), recorded contemporaneously at the time of
check and duly signed by respondent No.1, wherein it is admitted that
he had collected a sum of Rs.128/- from two passengers but failed to
issue tickets, stating that the omission occurred as he "forgot." This
admission, having been made immediately after the incident and prior
to any opportunity for deliberation or fabrication, carries considerable
evidentiary value. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on
the said admission.
22. During the course of enquiry, respondent No.1 sought to resile
from the said admission by contending that he was illiterate and that
his signature on the statement was obtained under compulsion.
However, no independent evidence was adduced to substantiate the
said plea. The respondent No.1 neither examined any witness nor
produced any material to establish coercion. On the contrary, the
checking officials, who were subjected to cross-examination, denied
any such allegation. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the
underlying writ petition, has not adverted to or assigned due weight to
the evidentiary value of the respondent No.1's own spot explanation
(Ex.M-3). Non-consideration of such a material and contemporaneous
piece of evidence has vitiated the impugned order.
23. The respondent relied on A.V. Swamy v. A.P.S.R.T.C 1. to
contend that non-verification of cash balance vitiates the charge. The
said reliance is misplaced. In the said decision, the allegation was of
excess collection, where verification of cash was material. In the
present case, the charge is of collection of fare without issuance of
tickets. In such circumstances, non-verification of cash is not fatal,
as the amount collected would form part of the cash on hand and not
necessarily reflect any excess. Further, the charge stands proved on
the basis of contemporaneous material, including the passengers'
statements (Ex.M-2) and the respondent's own admission (Ex.M-3).
24. It is pertinent to note that the appellant-Corporation placed on
record that respondent No.1 had been censured on 07.05.2013 in a
prior Cash & Ticket irregularity case. This aspect was specifically
pleaded however, learned Single Judge, did not assign due weight to
the said past conduct. Though censure is a minor penalty, it reflects
on the conduct of the employee. The fact that respondent No.1 was
(2014) 5 ALT 554
involved in a similar irregularity within a short span (earlier incident
in January 2012 and the present incident in September 2013) is a
relevant factor while considering grant of any leniency.
25. Section 11-A of the ID Act empowers the Tribunal to interfere
with punishment where it is disproportionate. However, such power
is to be exercised judiciously. In the present case, the Tribunal, upon
consideration of the material on record, held that respondent No.1
had collected fare without issuing tickets and observed that he
intended to misappropriate Corporation revenue, and therefore,
declined to take a lenient view. Thus, the Tribunal exercised its
discretion under Section 11-A of the ID Act and upheld the
punishment. The learned Single Judge, by directing reinstatement,
substituted his own view on proportionality without recording any
finding of perversity or illegality in the Tribunal's order. In the
absence of such findings, interference was unwarranted by the writ
Court.
26. It is apposite to note that the relief given by the learned Single
by directing reinstatement with continuity of service and notional
benefits, but without backwages is internally inconsistent. While
reinstatement proceeds on the premise that the punishment is
unsustainable or disproportionate, denial of backwages indicates that
the period of non-employment is justified. More importantly,
reinstatement results in re-induction of an employee found guilty of
financial irregularity, which has implications on discipline and
integrity within a public utility organization.
Conclusion
27. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with
the well-reasoned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on
cogent evidence, including the contemporaneous statements of the
passengers and the respondent No.1's own admission and does not
warrant interference.
28. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order dated
20.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5447 of
2018 is set aside, and the award dated 16.10.2017 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in I.D.No.42 of
2014 is restored.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed. No costs.
_______________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN,J
Date: 02.04.2026
szt
