[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
V. Swamy vs The Chairman on 7 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
+ WRIT PETITION No.30963 of 2010
Between:
V. Swamy .. Petitioner
AND
The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Warangal and another.
.. Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 07.04.2026
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
___________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.30963 of 2010
% 07-04-2026
# V. Swamy ... Petitioner
AND
$ The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Warangal and another.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao
^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri N. Chandra Shekhar,
Learned SC for TGSRTC.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
3
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2026
WRIT PETITION No.30963 of 2010
Between:
V. Swamy .. Petitioner
AND
The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Warangal and another
.. Respondents
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed to quash the Award
passed by the 1st respondent in I.D. No.119 of 2005, dated
24.09.2007, and grant all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri N. Chandra Shekhar, learned Standing
Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondent No.2, and
perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent
Corporation as a Conductor in the year 1989, and his services
were regularized w.e.f. 01.12.1990. He had maintained a good
record of service till he was removed from service by order
dated 13.12.2002 of the 2nd respondent. On the eve of the
Medaram Jatara, the petitioner was discharging his duties as a
volunteer at the Jatara point. His responsibility was to regulate
the passengers queue and facilitate their orderly boarding onto
buses. There were other higher officials also performing duties
of supervisory duties.
(b) On 02.03.2002, the petitioner was forcibly asked to
do ground booking work, but he informed the Supervisor
concerned that since he had been tired in discharging his
duties sleeplessly, it was not possible for him to do the job of
ground booking. Despite his protest, he was forced to
discharge his duties at the ground booking office, issuing
tickets to passengers' and another conductor was deputed to
assist him. The petitioner issued 55 tickets to the passengers
and closed the bill way. Thereafter, four more passengers
requested the issuance of tickets as their other family members
had already boarded the said bus. As such, he had taken out
four tickets of Rs.55/- denomination to issue duly altering the
bill way, and when he demanded the fare amount, the
passengers in question refused to board the bus on the
grounds that there were no seats available. Thereby, they
alighted from the bus without paying the fare. Therefore, the
petitioner had neither punched nor issued the said tickets, and
he kept them in the Rs.55/- denomination tray and informed
the ADC. But inadvertently, he forgot to alter the bill way was
due to tiredness, and there was no mala fide intention on his
part to defraud the legitimate revenue of the Corporation.
(c) The way bill was handed over to the Service Driver,
and he moved the bus to the point, there the supervisors
checked the bus, and again the four passengers in question,
boarded the bus without the petitioner's knowledge. It is the
duty of the Supervisors to check the bus before it leaves the
point, but they failed to discharge their duties, and the
petitioner was made a scapegoat. The petitioner did not collect
any amount from the said passengers. The bus was checked at
Stage No.3/1 Mallampally, and the charge memo was served on
him on 06.03.2002. Again the bus was checked on the said
day, and the Charge Memo was served on him on 08.03.2002.
The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation explaining
the circumstances and denied the allegations. The petitioner
was not available in the bus as he was discharging his duties
at Madaram Jatara Point.
(d) With regard to Charge No.2, that the petitioner
issued unpunched tickets of Rs.50 and Rs.5 denomination, to
50 passengers (43 adults + 7 chargeable children), and he
collected the money. Another Conductor was issuing tickets
due to heavy rush, and the said conductor was also deputed by
the respondent Corporation. Therefore, he had not committed
any misconduct, nor was there any mala fide intention to
defraud the Corporation's legitimate revenue. On account of
Jatara, the petitioner performed duties without any rest from
23.02.2002. During the said period, he was asked to perform
duties as a Volunteer, Ground Booking, and other duties as per
the instructions of higher officials on the eve of Medaram
Jatara.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the
tickets were issued at the booking place, it was the duty of the
Supervisor to verify or cross-verify the tickets before the bus
leaves from that place. If any alleged irregularities were
noticed, it was only due to the heavy rush, and the Supervisor
also did not properly verify the tickets as such, the petitioner
had not committed any misconduct. Though the petitioner did
not commit any misconduct, the 2nd respondent imposed the
capital punishment, and on account of the petitioner's conduct
in operating the bus, no loss of revenue has been caused to the
Corporation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
before the 1st respondent also, the petitioner challenged the
validity of domestic enquiry wherein, he stated that the
Enquiry Officer did not summon the other employee, who has
discharged duty along with the petitioner and who issued the
tickets at that time. The petitioner gave his statement before
the Enquiry Officer, which remained unchallenged and
unrebutted. On behalf of the Corporation, one of the checking
officials was examined, and his evidence also does not
substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner; as
such, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the respondents had failed to take into consideration the
petitioner's unchallenged testimony and erroneously held that
the charges levelled against him were proved. The 1st
respondent, having held that the punishment of removal is
disproportionate, erroneously denied the petitioner's continuity
of service and back wages, and the reasons assigned by the 1st
respondent insofar as denying the petitioner's continuity of
service and back wages are perverse. Accordingly, prayed to
allow the Writ Petition.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the TGSRTC has filed a
counter on behalf of the 2nd respondent by contending that the
petitioner was censured five times, his annual increment
deferred 13 times during the course of his employment, on
similar charges of cash and ticket irregularities. He was also
suspended twice prior to the removal in the present case.
8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that Medaram
Jathra special services were operated and the clearance of the
traffic from various points to Jathra commenced on 25.02.2002
and closed on 28.02.2002 at 14-00 hours. The department
utilized senior conductors as volunteers and Booking Clerks to
clear pilgrim traffic. They have drafted the staff duties so that
each employee must perform 12 hours duty and take 12 hours
rest in the Jathara camp. The petitioner is one of the
conductors drafted for the clearance of return traffic from
Medaram Jathara by Narsampet Depot. On each shift, one
booking clerk, assisted by three volunteers, one security guard,
and a supervisor was assigned to each booking counter to
ensure smooth operation. The entire pilgrim traffic was cleared
by 02.03.2002, as it was the last day of Jathara. To clear the
left over traffic, skeleton staff was kept, and others left for the
Depot by duly winding up the camp. The petitioner and the
other two conductors and Depot Clerks were kept at the
Jathara site.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the traffic
was very poor and occasional when compared to the previous
days. The petitioner was on duty issuing of tickets from 00-06
hours to 18.00 hours. As and when passengers boarded the
bus, the booking conductors, including the petitioner, issued
tickets and dispatched the buses. A check was conducted by
the TTls of the Special Checking Squad, Achampet, near
Narsampet, on 02.03.2002 at 9-40 hours, during which certain
cash and ticket irregularities were detected. On the same day,
conducted another check on bus No.AP-10Z-3115 near
Mallampally by the Headquarters Enforcement Squad and they
noticed that four passengers were travelling without tickets.
The petitioner issued tickets to the passengers of two buses.
After completing the formalities, charge memos were prepared
and sent to the then Depot authorities, along with their special
report, with a request to serve the same on the petitioner.
Based on the check report, the petitioner was suspended by an
order dated 05.04.2002, and a chargesheet was issued with the
following two charges.
CHARGES:
(i) For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of four
passengers, who boarded the bus at Medaram and
bound for Narsampet, ex-stages 3 to 1, even after
collecting the requisite fare of Rs.55/- each from
them (totally Rs.220/-) at booking point, Medaram
for the vehicle No.AP-10Z-3115 on 2-3-2002, which
constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of
APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.
(ii) For having issued un-punched tickets bearing
No.116/638738 to 780 of Rs.50/- deno. E-43
tickets, 671/603618 to 660 of Rs.5/- deno. E-43
tickets 210/687396 to 399, 400 to 402 of Rs.30/-
deno. E-7 tickets which were issued by you to 50
passengers (43 adults and seven-chargeable
children) on 2-3-2002 at Medaram point for the bus
bearing No.AP112-1367, who boarded the bus at
Medaram (Medaram booking point) and bound for
Narsampet, ex-stages 2 to 1, which constitutes
misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC
Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963."
10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the
petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet, but the
disciplinary authority was not convinced by the same, ordered
a domestic enquiry by duly nominating the Chief Inspector (E),
Regional Manager's office, Warangal, as an Enquiry Officer. The
statements of TIL, HES/Hyderabad and TTI, HES/Achampet,
Depot clerk, Narsampet, and two drivers were recorded in the
presence of the petitioner, and he cross-examined them at
length, and his statement was also recorded in defence. All the
proceedings of the enquiry were read over and explained to him
in Telugu. The Enquiry Officer recorded his findings and
transmitted the file to the disciplinary authority, who in turn,
called for objections/comments, if any, on the domestic
enquiry through a letter dt.13-9-2002, and the petitioner
submitted the same on 13.10.2002.
11. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the
explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the
disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 01-11-
2002, as to why the petitioner should not be removed from
service, and the petitioner submitted his explanation. But, the
same was not satisfactory, he was removed from service
through proceedings dated 13.12.2002. The enquiry was
conducted in a fair manner, and the petitioner was afforded full
opportunities during the course of the enquiry. The petitioner
also certified that he was satisfied with the manner of the
conduct of the enquiry. The appeal and review preferred by the
petitioner were rejected on 19.05.2003 and 23.03.2005,
respectively.
12. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the
petitioner filed ID No.119 of 2005 questioning the order of
removal before the Labour Court Godavarikhani. The Labour
Court, considered all the facts and evidence available on record
and rightly rejected the petitioner's claim by its Award dated
24.09.2007. Despite the charges being proved, the Labour
Court granted the petitioner the major relief of fresh
reinstatement, and in pursuance of the Award, the petitioner
was reinstated into service. The Award of the Labour Court is
on appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, and may
not warrant the interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed
to dismiss the Writ Petition.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
13. In the present case, the petitioner is questioning the
Award passed by the Labour Court in ID No.119 of 2005, dated
24.09.2007, as it did not grant the relief of continuity of service
and other benefits to him. After conducting the enquiry, two
charges were framed; one is for failing to issue tickets to a
batch of four passengers, and the 2nd is for un-punched tickets
bearing No.116/638738 to 780 of Rs.50/- denomination, who
boarded the bus at Medaram during the Jatara. The petitioner
was required to perform the Medaram Jatara duty from
23.02.2002 to 02.03.2002. The clearance of the traffic from
various points to Jatara commenced on 25.02.2002 and closed
on 28.02.2002. The department utilized senior conductors as
volunteers and booking clerks to clear of pilgrim traffic.
14. The petitioner worked as a volunteer. The respondent
authorities drafted the duties of staff so that each employee
must perform a 12 hours duty and take rest in the Jatara
camp for the remaining 12 hours. The petitioner is one among
the conductors drafted for the clearance of traffic from
Medaram Jathara by Narsampet Depot. The petitioner was on
duty for issuing tickets on 02.03.2002 from 00-06 hours to
18.00 hours. As and when passengers boarded the bus, the
booking conductors, including the petitioner, issued tickets
and dispatched the buses. A check was exercised by the TTIs of
Special Checking Squad, Achampet, near Narsampet, on
02.03.2002 at 9-40 hours, during which certain cash and
ticket irregularities were detected, and two charges were issued
to the petitioner, as stated supra.
15. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but having not
been satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner,
the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice on
01.11.2002 as to why the petitioner should not be removed
from service. Again the petitioner submitted his explanation,
due to unsatisfactory nature, the petitioner was removed from
service vide proceedings dt.13.12.2002. The appeal and
revision preferred by the petitioner were also rejected on
19.05.2003 and 20.03.2003, respectively. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner filed ID No.119 of 2005 questioning the order of
removal as stated supra.
16. After considering the removal order, appeal and revisional
order, the Labour Court set aside the said orders by treating
the punishment as disproportionate. While setting aside the
removal order, dated 13.12.2002, directed the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner as a conductor afresh in the time scale
of pay at that time, but without continuity of service, back
wages and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same,
the present Writ Petition has been filed.
17. A perusal of the record shows that, initially, the petitioner
worked as a volunteer in the Medaram Jathara, and his duty
was to form the queue for passengers and allow them to board
the bus. The petitioner's contention is that on 02.3.2002, he
was forcibly asked to do ground booking work. At that
juncture, the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to perform
the duty due to the heavy rush of the Jathara and work load as
he spent sleepless nights, but the same was not considered by
the respondent authorities, and he was forcibly asked to do
ground booking for the issuance of tickets to the passengers
and another conductor was deputed to assist him.
18. In obedience to the orders of the higher-ups, the
petitioner performed his duties. After issuing 55 tickets to the
passengers, the petitioner closed the bill way. Thereafter, four
passengers requested for the issuance of tickets as their other
family members had already boarded the same bus. At that
juncture, being a human being, considered their request, and
immediately taken out the four tickets of Rs.55/- denomination
in order to issue tickets duly altering the way bill and then he
demanded the fare amount from the passengers, but the same
was refused by the passengers on the ground of non-
availability of seats and they got down without paying the fare
amount. Due to non-payment of the fare amount, the petitioner
did not punch the tickets. The authorities upon seeing this
conduct, considered it serious in nature, and took the
subsequent actions as stated supra.
19. Everybody knows the hectic schedule at the time of
jathara and the crowd, especially drivers and conductors, will
suffer a lot while performing their duties. They often have to
deal with overcrowded buses, tight schedules, traffic
congestion, and constant pressure to keep things moving
safely. When matters stand in this way, if any mistake is made
by the driver or conductor, it should be viewed leniently by the
authorities, and punishment should be meted out accordingly.
But in the present case, due to sleepless nights, the petitioner
did not wish to perform the duty, and officials forcibly asked
him to do so. Because of the heavy crowd and the importance
of the buses, the petitioner did not refuse the order of the
authorities. While doing so, the above two irregularities
occurred. But, at the same time, knowingly or unknowingly,
due to the sleepless nights of the petitioner, irregularities took
place.
20. It is pertinent to note that the Labour Court, after
considering all the aforementioned aspects, set aside the
removal order and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner
into service afresh, without granting back wages, continuity of
service, or other attendant benefits. In view of the above
circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that,
although certain irregularities did occur, they were neither
willful nor attributable to gross negligence on the part of the
petitioner, but arose due to the reasons stated above. Such
irregularities cannot be considered serious in nature.
21. While considering the reliefs as sought by the petitioner,
this court while, going through the previous service record of
the petitioner, as per the respondent authorities, it is found
that he was censured five (05) times and his annual increments
deferred 13 times during the course of his employment on
similar charges of cash and ticket irregularities. But the same
cannot be considered during the course of festival season or
during the Medaram Jathara. However, the petitioner also did
not dispute his previous punishments, and the same would
hinder in the granting of the relief as sought by him.
22. The Labour Court passed the Award by setting aside the
removal order dated 13.12.2002 and directed the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner as "Conductor afresh" in the present
scale of pay but without continuity of service, back wages and
other attendant benefits. Since the alleged irregularity was
committed during the Medaram Jathara and the petitioner
spent sleepless nights during the said Jathara, considering the
same, this Court is taking a lenient view and modifying the
Award of the Labour Court in ID No.119 of 2005, dated
24.09.2007. Thus, the respondent authorities are directed to
pay the full back wages to the petitioner from the date of his
removal to the date of his fresh appointment, without
continuity of service and without attendant benefits in
accordance with law.
23. With the above modification, this Writ Petition is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date:07.04.2026
BDR
NOTE: LR COPY IS TO BE MARKED.
