[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

M.Somaiah vs The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C on 26 March, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                   WRIT PETITION No.16782 of 2017
                          Dated 26th March, 2026.

Between:

M. Somaiah
                                                                        ... Petitioner
                                        AND

The Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C.,
Warangal-I Depot, Hanumakonda,
and another.
                                                                    ... Respondents
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the record relating the impugned award dated 22.12.2015 made in I.D.No.11/2014 on the file of the 2nd Respondent - Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal to the extent not granting attendant benefits and full back wages to the petitioner for the period out of employment and set aside the same to that extent as arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law and consequently grant attendant benefits and full back wages to the petitioner and pass..."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially

appointed as a Driver on daily wage basis on 16.11.1987, and his

services were subsequently regularized on 01.01.1990. However, on

PK, J

29.11.2011, while the petitioner was operating the Ticket Issuing

Machine (TIM), on route Warangal - Shiridi, a check was exercised at

Stage No.17-Basmath at about 23-45 hours, wherein, the petitioner was

alleged to have been involved in cash and ticket irregularities, having

collected lesser fare from the passenger. As such, the petitioner was

issued with a Charge Sheet dated 12.12.2011, and after considering his

explanation, a domestic enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer has

conducted an enquiry and accordingly, held charge No.2 as proved.

Basing on the said enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from

service vide proceedings dated 23.04.2012. The appeal, revision and

mercy petitions preferred by the petitioner were also rejecting vide

orders dated 06.08.2012, 04.03.2013 and 30.05.2013 respectively,

confirming his removal. Thereafter, the petitioner raised I.D.No.11 of

2014 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, (for

short, 'the Tribunal), and the Tribunal has passed the award dated

22.12.2015, setting aside the petitioner's removal order and directed

reinstatement with continuity of service, however, denied backwages

and attendant benefits. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, and Sri N. Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for

PK, J

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire

enquiry proceedings are vitiated as the petitioner was not afforded any

opportunity to examine the witnesses. However, despite the enquiry

officer recording that no passenger has boarded at Bodhan and that

tickets were issued to the passengers boarded at Nizamabad, he failed to

arrive at a definite conclusion with respect to Charge No.,1 and

erroneously and arbitrarily held Charge No.2 as proved, basing on which

report, the petitioner has been illegally removed from service. It is

further contended that the appeal, revision and mercy petitions have

been rejected, without properly appreciating the facts or material on

record. As such, the petitioner was constrained to approach the

Tribunal and filed I.D.No.11 of 2014, wherein, the Tribunal has

categorically held that the petitioner had no intention to defraud the

revenue of the Corporation and that it is not a case of misappropriation.

It was also held that the passenger has given a false statement to the

TTIs that he boarded the bus at Bodhan for Basmath, and it was a case

of overriding by the passenger but not misappropriation of fare by the

petitioner. As such vide award dated 22.12.2015, the Tribunal has set

aside the petitioner's removal order and granted reinstatement with

PK, J

continuity of service. However, the Tribunal, having held that main

charge against the petitioner has not been proved and on holding that

the punishment of removal is highly disproportionate, ought not to have

denied full back wages and attendant benefits for the period of his

unemployment. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this

Court to extend full back wages and attendant benefits.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents, on filing of a counter affidavit, submits that the

petitioner, while performing his duties as a TIM Driver on 29.11.2011 on

route Warangal-Shiridi, was found involved in cash and ticket

irregularities during the check conducted by the TTIs. He had issued

unconcerned tickets of Rs.127/- valid from Nizamabad to Nanded, by

collecting Rs.130/- instead of Rs.157/- from one passenger towards the

requisite fare, who boarded the bus at Bodhan, and bound for Basmath.

As such, the petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo on the spot and

he had submitted his spot explanation admitting his guilt.

Subsequently, based on the material evidence, he was placed under

suspension vide order dated 12.12.2011 and a Charge Sheet, with two

charges, was issued. However, as the explanation of the petitioner was

unconvincing, a domestic enquiry was ordered and conducted, in

consonance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with

PK, J

the Regulations of the Corporation. Thereafter, the enquiry officer

submitted his report, holding Charge No.2 as proved, which was

communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.03.2012, and the

petitioner submitted his objections/comments. However, no fresh valid

points were raised by the petitioner. As such, basing on the enquiry

report, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated

13.04.2012, calling for his explanation as to why the punishment of

removal from service shall not be inflicted upon him. In response, the

petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.04.2012. The disciplinary

authority has gone through the entire material evidence and the

explanations submitted by the petitioner, and imposed the punishment

of removal from service vide proceedings dated 23.04.2012, which is just

and proper for the proven misconduct. It is further submitted that the

appeal and review petitions preferred by the petitioner were also rejected

vide proceedings dated 06.08.2012 and 04.03.2013 respectively.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review appeal before the Executive

Director, Karimnagar, which was also rejected on merits vide

proceedings dated 30.05.2013. However, the Labour Court has taken a

lenient view in the matter and allowed I.D.No.11 of 2014 vide award

dated 22.12.2015, directing reinstatement with continuity of service, but

PK, J

without back wages. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ

petition as devoid of any merit.

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

learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on

record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was inflicted with the

punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 23.04.2012,

owing to his alleged failure in observing the 'issue and start' rule, and

cash and ticket irregularity. The petitioner's appeal, review and review

appeal were all rejected by the respective authorities vide proceedings

dated 06.08.2012, 04.03.2013 and 30.05.2013, respectively. The

petitioner then raised I.D.No.11 of 2014 before the Labour Court, which

was allowed vide award dated 22.12.2015, directing reinstatement with

continuity of service but without back wages. The following is an

excerpt of the award passed by the Labour Court:

"12. As rightly submitted by the petitioner, it was a clear case of overriding by the passenger. But the petitioner ought to have taken head count at Nanded and proceeded further. If the passenger was continuing the journey to Basmath, he ought to have collected the requisite fare and issued proper ticket to him. His negligence in discharge of duty led to overriding by the passenger. Had the check not taken place, the Corporation would have sustained loss of Rs.30/.

13. For the foregoing reasons, it must be held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that charge No.1 as regards the petitioner's

PK, J

failure to observe the rule "Issue and Start" was proved is not baseless but the finding that the other charge was proved is baseless. The point is answered accordingly.

14. The next point for determination is: Whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proven misconduct?

15. Charge No.1 is held proved and charge No.2 is held not proved. Admittedly, the petitioner was performing TIM service and the check was exercised at 23.45 hours. In the circumstances, the possibility of the petitioner not noticing the passenger in the bus prior to the check cannot be ruled out. The petitioner is now aged 56 years. At this age, he cannot get any alternative employment. It is not shown that the petitioner had intention of defrauding the Corporation. Further, this is not a case of misappropriate of fare.

...

17. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision in M.R.Naidu's case, it must be held that the punishment of removal is disproportionate and punishment less than that will meet the ends of justice.

18. IN THE RESULT, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages. The petitioner is accordingly allowed."

8. From a perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court, it is

unequivocally clear that there are no procedural irregularities in the

conduct of domestic enquiry, as alleged by the petitioner. Further, out

of the two charges leveled against the petitioner, one charge, pertaining

to non-observance of 'Issue and Start' Rule, was conclusively held

proved. The Labour Court, having held this Charge as proved, appears

to have taken a lenient view in the case of the petitioner, owing to his

age at that time, which was (56) years. The Labour Court also having

PK, J

found that it is not a case of misappropriation, categorically held that

the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner is

disproportionate and a lesser punishment would meet the ends of

justice. As such, the Labour Court, while setting aside the petitioner's

removal order and granting reinstatement with continuity of service,

rightly rejected awarding back wages.

9. It is well-settled law that the award of back wages upon

reinstatement is not automatic, but is wholly dependent upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. The burden of proving that the

workman was gainfully employed elsewhere usually lies upon the

employer in order to deny back wages. However, it is equally important

for the workman to prove, if not plead, that he was not employed

elsewhere. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Phool Chand (D)1, has categorically

made the following observations regarding the grant of back wages.

"11. In our considered opinion, the courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service.

1 (2018) SCC 18 299

PK, J

12. It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. Initial burden is, however, on the employee.

13. In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial, depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages are required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies, etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, M.P. SEB v. Jarina Bee [M.P. SEB v. Jarina Bee, (2003) 6 SCC 141 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 833] , Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh [Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 716] , U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday NarainPandey [U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 250] , J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651] , Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. V. Venkatesan [Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 719] , Jagbir Singh v.

Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board [Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545] and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184]."

10. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to plead before the

Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the

PK, J

period of removal. Further, the reinstatement was awarded by the

Labour Court duly taking a lenient view in the matter, rather than

entirely holding the removal as illegal. The Labour Court has also

upheld that the petitioner was guilty of one of the two charges leveled

against him.

11. In the circumstances, this Court does not find reason to interfere

with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. As such, the

present writ petition fails and it is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.