Supreme Court - Daily Orders
A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. By Depot Manager vs G. Murali on 13 July, 2017
Bench: R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3037 OF 2010
A.P.S.R.T.C., REP. BY DEPOT MANAGER ...Appellant
VS.
G.MURALI ...Respondent
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 30th June, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
It appears that the respondent was working as a Conductor in the appellant-Corporation. On 16th June, 1994 he was on duty as Conductor in Bus No.1199. A surprise check was conducted by the TTI who found that certain passengers have not been issued tickets, even though the fare was collected by the respondent. The statements of the passengers were recorded. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved and order of removal from service was passed by the disciplinary authority. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2017.07.18
The matter was taken by way of industrial dispute 15:21:57 IST Reason: being ID No.189/95 and the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour 1 Court, Warangal vide order dated 30th December, 1999 had held that the charges 2 to 5 stand not proved for the simple reason that the statements of the passengers which were relied upon by the appellant-Corporation was specifically denied by the respondent and he had stated that he had issued all the tickets for which the fare was charged and the allegation that no ticket was issued is false. The Industrial Court had held that as the passengers were not produced in the enquiry, the statement recorded by the TTI from the passengers cannot be taken in evidence, as no opportunity was given to the respondent to cross-examine. Consequently, the Industrial Court had held that charges 2 to 5 have not been proved. So far as the remaining charges 1 and 6 are concerned, it was held to be proved and therefore the Industrial Court reduced the penalty from removal of service to stoppage of three increments. The appellant challenged the order by filing a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the same.
Feeling aggrieved, Writ Appeal was filed which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. We find that the order of the Industrial Court exonerating the respondent from charges 2 to 5 are on good grounds and do not call for any interference, as the passengers were not produced for cross-examination specifically when the respondent 2 had denied the charges of collecting fare and non-issuing of tickets.
We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the High Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
.........................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL] .........................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;
July 13, 2017.
3
ITEM NO.120 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 3037/2010
A.P.S.R.T.C., REP. BY DEPOT MANAGER Appellant(s)
VERSUS
G. MURALI Respondent(s)
Date : 13-07-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Appellant(s) Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. A.Ramesh,Adv.
Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi,Adv.
For Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.) 4