Telangana High Court
K.Anjaiah, S/O. Mogulaiah vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 6 August, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 36801 OF 2015
ORDER:
Petitioner challenges the order of removal dated 12.11.2012, as modified by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.04.2014 insofar as imposing the punishment of reduction of pay besides treating the removal period as 'not on duty' for all purposes.
2. Petitioner - Conductor of the Corporation was stated to have been removed from service on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred appeal and revision which, according to him, were rejected in mechanical manner vide respective orders dated 22.05.2013 and 21.02.2014. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a review before the 2nd respondent, who passed the order dated 16.04.2014 reinstating him into service by reducing the pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and the interregnum period of removal from service should be treated as 'not on duty' for all practical purposes.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha Goud submits that the 2nd respondent ought to have appreciated that the 1st charge is not supported by the 2 passengers statement, further the other charges are not at all supported by any independent witnesses or at least from the evidence of the service driver, but he simply held the charges are proved. Hence, this action is not sustainable in law. According to learned counsel, the action of the 2nd respondent in imposing the above punishment as well as denying the service and wages for removal period is bad in law as well as violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that since the date of removal till he was reinstated into service on 06.05.2014, petitioner remained unemployed and faced much hardship, hence, he is entitled for the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition.
4. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, it is stated in the counter that petitioner has not approached the Labour Court under Section-10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the impugned order, on this sole ground, Writ Petition deserves to be rejected. It is stated that after Appeal and Revision were rejected, petitioner filed a mercy petition before the Executive Director, who, taking a lenient view on humanitarian grounds, modified the punishment of removal and reinstated him into service as conductor duly imposing punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with 3 cumulative effect; thereafter, he directly filed this Writ Petition without approaching the Labour Court under section 10-A of the Act.
5. It is also stated that petitioner was bereft of clean record, the details of punishments awarded to him were furnished hereunder:
(1). Placed under put off on 29.02.92 at Narayankhed depot in C & T case. Re-instated into service on 30.01 93 at ZHB depot.
(ii). Removed fro service on 07.06. 1999 in C & T irregularities and re-instated with punishment of reduction of pay by 3 incremental stages for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect.
(iii) One year without cumulative effect vide.
F.O.No.P3/1(25)/99, Dt. 27.01.99 in absenteeism case.
(iv). Six months without cumulative F.O.No.02/95(26)/04-ZHB, Dt. 06.11.04 in C & T case. effect vide
(v). Six months without cumulative F.O.No.02/95(26)/06-ZHB, dt. 16.03.06 in C & T case. effect vide
(vi). Three months without effect cumulative F.O.No.E2/1(15)/06-ZHB, dt. 15.07.06 in absenteeism case. vide
(vii). Six without months effect cumulative F.O.No.02/95(94)/06-ZHB, dt. 16.03.06 in C & T case. vide
(viii). In the present case removed from service in C & T case on 12.11.2012.
From the above, it is clear that petitioner had not performed his duties as Conductor properly. If no punishment is awarded to 4 him, there is every chance of repetition of same cases by the petitioner which may lead serious loss to the Corporation.
6. Heard learned Standing Counsel for Corporation and perused the record.
7. This is a case where the checking officials of HES/ZHB exercised check on petitioner while he was conducting bus bearing Registration No. AP 11 Z 2534 on route Zaeerabad-Maniyarpalli on 13.03.2012 and found that he collected Rs.5/- each from two passengers travelling from Parashpally to Maniarpally; on verification of TIM report, the said tickets were earlier issued on 12.03.2012 and used tickets were also found in his cash bag. It is alleged by the checking officials that petitioner had not cooperated and obstructed them while they were obtaining the statement of passengers and refused to acknowledge the charge memo, threatened the checking officials that 'if you write the case, I would drink poison and die'. He had also threatened that 'he would fall under bus'. A charge sheet was issued to the conductor, who acknowledged the same and requested for certain documents. After receiving the said documents, petitioner filed explanation, not satisfied with the same, AM(T)/Enquiries:SRD conducted enquiry and submitted report based on the explanation of 5 petitioner and the statement of Sri E.Narsimulu, one of the checking officials. The Depot Manager accordingly, concluded that charges proved are of serious nature and punishment of removal from service is fit and proper to be imposed on petitioner. Appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected. However, in the review, the Executive Director observed that charges levelled against petitioner were proved beyond doubt duly following the principles of natural justice; petitioner was removed from service once in cash and ticket irregularities case in June 1999 and was reinstated into service and this is the second removal from service, however, taking a lenient view purely on humanitarian grounds and to give him one more opportunity to discharge duties with commitment and loyalty to the Corporation, punishment was reduced as stated supra. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no passengers were found with reused tickets; the purported statement of passengers does not disclose it, however, attestation was obtained from him under threat of insubordination. It is further contended that petitioner did not possess any used tickets and the allegations were levelled against him with anger as he did not satisfy their demand, so no passenger was asked to give statement nor any ticket irregularities were found, hence the question of his obstructing the checking officials does not arise. 6 Learned Standing Counsel, in retaliation, submits that petitioner obstructed the passengers while giving their statements to the TTIs and he refused to receive the charge memo on the spot and threatened the checking officials; hence the TTIs. could not serve the charge memo on the spot and sent the same to the Depot which was later served on him. It is contended that if there is any threat, petitioner ought to have informed the matter to the depot authorities on the spot or to write the same in his spot statement, but he failed to do so. The said contention of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be brushed aside. Further, in view of rejection of Appeal and Revision, petitioner filed mercy petition before the Executive Director, who taking a lenient view on humanitarian grounds, modified the punishment. Moreover, from the counter-affidavit, it is clear that earlier, petitioner involved in cash and ticket irregularities and he was inflicted with various punishments which shows that he is bereft of clean record. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, petitioner filed this Writ Petition without approaching the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. From the above factual scenario, this Court opines that the 2nd respondent had already taken lenient view which further needs no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7
8. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on judgments of this Court in S. Narmada v. State of Telangana 1 to contend that respondents cannot improve their case by filing counter-affidavits before this Court without giving any reasons in the impugned orders and the same is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (1978) 1 SCC 405. He relied on another judgment in E.S. Anjaneyulu v. Regional Manager (N.R.), APSRTC. Nalgonda2 to submit that mere possessing the used tickets does not amount to misconduct; and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhik Nath 3. The above judgments, for the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraphs, are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
1 2024(4) ALD 209 (TS) 2 (2019(1) ALD 123 3 (2005) 2 SCC 369 8
10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Petitions, if any shall stand closed.
------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 06th August 2024 ksld