Telangana High Court
WP/18647/2008 of The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad city Region, Vs T.Mohan Rao on 31 December 2010
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18647 of 2008 ORDER: Respondent No.1 was employed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. When he was conducting a service on the route from K.P.H.B. Colony to N.G.Os. Colony, a check was affected. It was noticed
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.18647 of 2008
Respondent No.1 was employed as Conductor in AndhraPradesh State Road Transport Corporation. When he wasconducting a service on the route from K.P.H.B. Colony toN.G.Os. Colony, a check was affected. It was noticed thatrespondent No.1 reissued 5 tickets of Rs.6/- denomination to thepassengers, who boarded at Stage No.8. Further verificationrevealed that those tickets were handled by respondent No.1 on01.01.2005 in 15:25 hours trip from N.G.Os. Colony to K.P.H.B.Colony. Stating that it constitutes misconduct under Regulation28(x) and (xxiii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Conduct)Regulations, 1963, a charge sheet was issued. Respondent No.1submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with that, PetitionerNo.3 ordered domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found that thecharges framed against respondent No.1 were proved. Taking thesame into account, petitioner No.3 removed respondent No.1 fromservice through order, dated 05.05.2005. The order of dismissalfrom service was upheld in the departmental appeal and therevision.
Respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute before theAdditional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad inI.D.No.115 of 2006. Through its award, dated 24.03.2008, theLabour Court has set aside the order of dismissal and directedreinstatement of respondent No.1 with full back wages andcontinuity of service. The same is challenged in this writ petition.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners andthe learned counsel for respondent No.1.
The scope of interference with the awards passed by theLabour Court is limited and this Court does not sit as an appellateauthority. At the same time, if the findings recorded by the LabourCourt are perverse, this Court cannot permit the same to remainon record.
The charge against respondent No.1 was that whileconducting service on 10.01.2005, he reissued tickets, which werehandled by him on 01.01.2005. It is not difficult to trace theidentity of the tickets. Each of them contains distinct number.Before a bus leaves the Bus Depot, the Conductor is issued bunchof tickets of various denominations. The starting numbers of thetickets of each denomination are entered in the STAR document.As and how the service progresses, the details of the tickets ofdifferent denominations issued to the passengers are entered inthe STAR document.
In the instant case, the check affected on the serviceconducted by respondent No.1 revealed that he reissued orreutilized the tickets, which were already handled by him on01.01.2005. A thorough scrutiny was undertaken and the details ofsuch tickets were meticulously furnished. The verificationrevealed that the tickets, which were found to have been issued on10.01.2005, were those that were issued by respondent No.1himself in a trip on 01.01.2005 on the same route. Relevant entryin the STAR document was also pointed out.
Except stating that the incriminating tickets were found in the tickets box, respondent No.1 did not even deny the allegationthat he issued those very tickets in a trip on 01.01.2005.
The charge against respondent No.1 was almost foolproof and hardly any defence, worth its name, was forthcoming. TheEnquiry Officer was left with no alternative, except to hold that thecharge is proved. It is not uncommon that the Labour Courts wouldre-appreciate the evidence and if there exists any possibility fortaking a view different from the one taken by the disciplinaryauthority, they do take it and grant relief to the workmen. However, in such instances, the basic principles of evidence mustnot be ignored.
In this case, the Labour Court has unsettled the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer absolutely without any basis. It proceeded onthe assumption that reissue of tickets would mean, issuance oftickets that have been used in the earlier trips undertaken, on thesame day. Another fallacious reasoning adopted by the LabourCourt is that the charge did not indicate that respondent No.1reissued the tickets with a view to gain monetary benefit. Morethan all that, it has placed the burden upon the Corporation toexplain as to why and how respondent No.1 came into possessionof the incriminating tickets. The whole approach is untenable.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.1has since been retired from service.
Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed upholding theaward to the extent it directed reinstatement of respondent No.1,but setting aside that part of the award, which extended the benefitof back wages and continuity of service. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt:01.07.2010.kdl
______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J