Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Depot Manager, A.P State Road ... vs Mohd. Khan, S/O. Mohd. Chand Khan,Aged ... on 16 June, 2014
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy, Challa Kodanda Ram
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No.966 of 2014 16-06-2014 The Depot Manager, A.P State Road Transport Corporation, Barkatpura Depot, Hyderabad 27. Appellant Mohd. Khan, S/o. Mohd. Chand Khan,Aged about 56 years, Occ: Ex-Conductor, E.88174,R/o.H.No.9-10-223,Golkonda Quila, Hyderabad-8 and another... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C. SUNIL KUMAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases referred: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No.966 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
(per the Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25756 of 2006.
Briefly stated the facts are that the first respondent (for short the respondent) was appointed as a Conductor in the Year, 1989 and was working in Barkatpura Depot of APSRTC at Hyderabad. On 30.07.2003, while he was conducting a city bus service between Secunderabad and Imliban Bus Station, a check was conducted between stages 6 and 5. It was found that one passenger was holding a ticket, that was already issued on a previous occasion. Based upon that, a charge sheet was issued. The respondent filed an explanation denying the charge. He stated that he issued valid ticket to the concerned passenger, but since he misplaced it being in the drowsy condition, he i.e., the passenger has shown the ticket issued in the previous journey.
Not satisfied with the explanation, the appellant ordered disciplinary enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charge against the respondent is proved. Taking the same into account, the appellant passed an order dated 07.01.2004 removing the respondent from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the respondent filed I.D.No.197 of 2004 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. A nil award was passed on 14.11.2005 by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was opposed by the appellant.
Through the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge took the view that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, or for that matter, the Labour Court, was contrary to evidence on record. The award was set aside and the relief of reinstatement with 50% backwages was granted.
Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that once the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding about the charge and the same was accepted by the Labour Court, there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to take a different view. He submits that the learned Single Judge has virtually functioned as a Court of fact and recorded a finding, at variance with the one recorded in the domestic enquiry. Other grounds are also urged.
Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Corporation itself, not only recognised the meritorious service of the respondent but also issued several letters of appreciation to him. He submits that on one occasion, a passenger left a bag containing huge cash of Rs.21,000/- and exhibiting his honesty, the respondent returned the same to the Depot and there are several such instances. He contends that a man of such honesty cannot be expected to misappropriate Rs.5/-, that too, when the bus was filled with 75 passengers. He submits that the order under appeal does not warrant interference.
The only charge against the respondent was that he issued a used ticket of denomination of Rs.5/-, to a passenger on the date of check. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge is proved and the Labour Court passed a nil award.
It is true that the scope of interference in a Writ Petition, with the award passed by the Labour Court is very limited. At the same time, if the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, or the one arrived at by the Labour Court is contrary to the record, the High Court cannot ignore it.
In the instant case, the passenger from whom a reused ticket was recovered by name Waheed Ali was examined as a witness in the domestic enquiry. He clearly stated that he was issued a ticket for Rs.5/- and since he was drowsy while travelling in the bus, the ticket was misplaced and to avoid penalty and other consequences in the check, he has produced a ticket of the previous day journey, which was in his possession. He was said to a frequent traveller on the route and he has produced a ticket, which he purchased one or two days before. No serious contradiction was elicited form this witness, by the management.
The service, which was being conducted by the respondent, was a city bus, on a busy route. Even according to the statistical report, there were 75 passengers and as many as 50 tickets were issued at one stage. We have carefully gone through the award of the Labour Court. There was not even a discussion about Ex.M.16, the deposition of the passenger.
It is true that the denomination of ticket becomes immaterial once an act of dishonesty is proved on the part of the conductor. The issue is about the integrity and honesty of the concerned conductor. If there existed such instances in his past service, a finding can straightaway be arrived at that the person is proved to be dishonest. This case however presents a rare incident. Hardly, there were any disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. On the other hand, he was issued a certificate of appreciation for his act of honesty returning a bag containing Rs.21,500/- left by a passenger in his bus. The depot authorities have also issued letters of appreciation on several occasions. One can easily imagine the mindset of a person who has chosen to return the bag containing huge cash. A person of that mind would not in the ordinary circumstances, stoop to the level of misappropriating Rs.5/-, that too, therebeing a possibility of his dismissal from service, if the irregularity is noticed. The learned Single Judge has taken the correct view of the matter. We, therefore, find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Appeal shall stand disposed of.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date: 09.06.2014