Telangana High Court
G.Mallaiah,Warangal Dist vs I.T.Cumlabour Court, Warangal Dist ... on 3 January, 2022
Author: P. Madhavi Devi
Bench: P. Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.24178 OF 2007
ORDER
This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.21 of 2003 dt.24.04.2006 and consequently to reinstate the petitioner into service with wages and all other consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the 2nd respondent Corporation in April, 1980. In the year 2001 i.e., on 02.02.2001, while the petitioner was conducting a bus bearing No.AP9Z 3183 on the route Narsampet-Ponakal, a check was exercised at stage No.9, i.e., at Kotagandi at about 14.30 hours by the Regional Enforcement Squad, Warangal. It was noticed that the petitioner had failed to issue ticket to a lady passenger who boarded the bus at Gangadevipalli and was bound for Dharmaram, ex-stages 8 to 9/10, even after collecting the requisite fare of Rs.4/- from her at the boarding point. A charge memo was accordingly issued for violating the rule 'issue and start' and for failing to issue tickets and for having closed the ticket tray numbers of W.P.No.24178 of 2007 2 all denominations up to stage No.9 without completing the above ticket issues, which is a misconduct under Regulation 28(xxxii) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry report, wherein the charges against the petitioner were held proved, the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service through its proceedings dt.24.09.2001. The petitioner immediately approached the High Court, but the High Court dismissed his case by holding that the petitioner has to exhaust his remedies. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.21 of 2003 and an award was passed on 24.04.2006 upholding the order of removal. Against the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition.
3. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent failed to supply copies of the documents along with the charge sheet and the enquiry conducted is a false enquiry. According to the petitioner, the enquiry officer failed to discuss about the points which are in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner had collected fare from passengers and had issued valid tickets to all passengers at their respective boarding places and the said lady passenger had boarded the bus at Machapur, request stage 7/8, and not at stage No.8 Gangadevipally and was issued with ticket of Rs.4/- denomination, but the said ticket was taken by the TTIs at the time of the check from W.P.No.24178 of 2007 3 the said lady passenger and not from his cash bag and since he completed the ticket issues, he closed the SR. The allegation of creating nuisance and using unparliamentary language against the checking officials was also denied. It was submitted that the 2nd respondent wantonly created false case against the petitioner due to old grudge.
4. The Labour Court considered all the facts and has come to the conclusion that the enquiry was properly conducted and that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Accordingly, the punishment of removal from service was confirmed by the Labour Court, against which the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, submitted that Charge No.1 is as vague as it could be and it is the Circular issued by the Corporation to allow the passengers to board the bus wherever they hail their hands even at unscheduled places and the question of violation of the rule of 'issue and start' does not arise. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had collected fare from all the passengers and had issued valid tickets to them at their respective boarding places and the lady passenger in question had boarded the bus at Machapur, request stage 7/8, and not at stage No.8 Gangadevipally and that the ticket of Rs.4/- denomination was also issued and therefore, the petitioner had not committed any irregularity and the checking officials wanted to create a false case W.P.No.24178 of 2007 4 against the petitioner for extraneous reasons. It is also submitted that the passenger's statement was not attested by the petitioner but was attested by the service driver who clearly stated in the enquiry that his statement was dictated by the checking officials. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even the witness of the respondent Corporation itself did not support the case of the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that the Labour Court has confirmed the punishment by holding that the petitioner has failed to give any spot explanation. He submitted that the said reason cannot be a ground for confirming the penalty against the petitioner. He placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of The District Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Jaggaiahpet Vs. Labour Court, Guntur and another1. He further submitted that the punishment of removal from service for the allegation of non-issue of a ticket of Rs.4/- to one passenger is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence alleged against him. He therefore sought reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits and back wages.
6. Sri Mohd. Abdul Quddus, learned counsel representing Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, relied upon the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation to state that the petitioner was working as a Conductor since 10.04.1980 and many a times the petitioner was suspended and was awarded with 1 1978(1) (HC) APLJ 182 W.P.No.24178 of 2007 5 punishments. It was submitted that the petitioner did not cooperate with the checking officials while discharging their duties and refused to attest the checked documents and the checking officials obtained statement from the driver indicating the situation prevailing at that time. It was submitted that a fair and proper enquiry was conducted into the charges against the petitioner by following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the CCA Regulations. Since the charges have been proved, the punishment of removal from service is justified and the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy from this Court.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the punishment of removal from service is due to the charges being proved against the petitioner and not because the petitioner has refused to give his spot explanation. In the enquiry, the petitioner has participated and the charges have been held to be proved. The statement of the driver that his statement has been dictated to him by the checking officials may throw some doubt about the veracity of his statement at the time of check, but the fact remains that one passenger was found without a ticket in spite of her making payment. However, the punishment of removal from service for such misconduct is highly excessive. This Court cannot go into the past misconduct of the petitioner as the petitioner has been imposed with various punishments for the relevant acts of misconduct. Each misconduct has to be looked at independently and as far as the W.P.No.24178 of 2007 6 misconduct for which the charge sheet was issued is concerned, the punishment of removal is excessive. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the punishment to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and notional reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service only for retirement benefits. So far as wages for the period of removal to his attaining the age of superannuation is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner was aged 56 years at the time when he filed the Writ Petition in 2007 and was removed from service on 24.09.2001. By the time of removal, he had already put in nearly 20 years of service. Therefore, instead of awarding back wages, this Court deems fit and proper to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The punishment of the petitioner is therefore modified from removal from service to the stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 03.01.2022 Svv