Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

" 1. For having failed to observe the rule, issue and start.
2. For having collected the bus ticket fare at the boarding place itself and failed to issue ticket to one passenger found alighting without ticket having boarded your bus at Regunta ex-stages 5 to 6 while you were conducting bus No.3031 on 30.07.2005.
3. For having failed to close the SR up to stage No.6 which is marked as XXX.
c) The petitioner explained that when he was in act of issuing ticket to the passenger in question, the checking officials have prevented him from issuing ticket and obtained the check documents as per their wishes under the threat of in sub-

c) The Court below erroneously failed to exercise the power given to it u/s.11A of the I.D. Act. The ticket checking procedure as mandated under the Rules admittedly as borne on records had not been followed in the present case and therefore the order impugned has to be set aside.

d) The Petitioner in his explanation to the above charges levelled against him explained that the Petitioner issued tickets to all the passengers at stage No.5 Satharam and this one passenger had boarded the bus enroute i.e., after passing Satharam stage and delayed the payment of fare amount and by the time the fare amount was collected and the ticket is being issued, the checking officials stopped the bus prior to stage No.6 Regunta and pulled one ticket which was being issued to the one passenger. Thus the passenger was not alighting at stage No.6 Regunta is yet to come. Since he had to complete the ticket issue to one passenger and stage No.6 is not reached, the Petitioner has not closed the tray numbers in the S.R. It cannot be termed as misconduct. The distance from boarding place and check place is very meager and WP_9874_2012 7 SN,J negligent. The fare amount of the bus ticket allegedly involved is Rs.3/- only. The Petitioner did not close the tray numbers in the S.R. As such, no malafide intention can be attributed to him and moreover the ticket was taken by the TTIs from the hands of the Petitioner. Thus punishment of removal from service is highly excessive, harsh and arbitrary and the explanation of the petitioner was not considered at all.

11. This Court opines that as borne on record in so far as charge No.2 is concerned, it is evident that there is no evidence on record to support charge No.2 levelled against the Petitioner. The Court below having held at para 25 of the Order dt. 17.01.2012 in I.D.No.32 of 2007 that the service driver was not examined before the enquiry officer so the reliance of the enquiry officer on the statement of the service driver is not proper, ought not have held charge No.2 as proved against the Petitioner. A bare perusal of the rules in force relating to the ticket checking procedure followed by the Respondent Corporation as per its circular guidelines clearly indicates that the checking officials should try to collect independent evidence of fellow passengers or drivers of the buses wherever possible and also record the full address of the passengers connected with the irregularity and witnesses if any while framing charges. But in the present case admittedly record clearly WP_9874_2012 15 SN,J indicates that said ticket checking procedure or the method of checking contemplated under the rules had not been followed. The Court below having held at para No.28 of its Order that the Respondent failed to prove the alleged pervious punishments imposed against the Petitioner prior to the present case ought not have held charge No.2 against the Petitioner as proved when there was no evidence at all on record substantiating the said charge and more so when the Court below observed that the statement of service driver could not be relied upon. This Cout opines that the second charge which is based mainly on the driver, Metpally, Sri Ch.A.Rao's statement and the same has been admittedly rejected by the Labour Court, then the finding of the Labour Court on charge No.2 itself is perverse. The fare amount of the bus ticket allegedly involved is Rs.3/- only and since the Petitioner did not close the tray numbers in the S.R. as such no malafide intention admittedly can be attributed to the Petitioner, therefore charge No.3 eventually also cannot be held as WP_9874_2012 16 SN,J proved, which has however, been mechanically held as proved by the Court below.