WP/14444/2002 of M. Shankaraiah Vs The Depot Maanager, on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

The sole petitioner seeks for the setting aside of theaward of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad dated10.4.2001 in I.D.No. 149 of 2000 and to orderreinstatement of the petitioner together with all servicebenefits.

The petitioner joined as a Conductor of APSRTC (‘the Corporation’ for short) in December 1991. His serviceswere regularised with effect from 19.1.1993. Thepetitioner allegedly resorted to cash and ticket irregularityon 22.6.1996 while he was acting as Conductor of bustravelling from Mettabasupally to Tandur. A charge sheetwas issued containing the following charge:

“For having issued unauthorised tickets bearing Nos. 494/010168to 010188 of Rs. 2.75 denomination by altering as Rs. 3,25denomination at mittabaspally to 21 individual passengers whowere found alighting at Tandur, and the same are not accounted inthe way bill and thus you have defrauded the revenues of theCorporation, which constitute serious misconduct under Reg. 23

(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963 read withnote 2 of Regulation 9 (i) of APSRTC Employees (C.C & A) Reg.1963.”

The petitioner was subjected to enquiry and was found guilty on the ground that the petitioner was issuedunconcerned tickets. The disciplinary authority orderedremoval of the petitioner from service. After exhaustingthe administrative remedies, the petitioner raised anindustrial dispute. The learned Presiding Officer of theIndustrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad returned a nil awardholding that the removal of the petitioner from service wasjust and reasonable. A writ of certiorari consequently issought to set aside the award of the Tribunal.

It is the case of the Corporation that the petitionerissued unauthorised tickets of Rs. 2.75ps denomination byaltering the same as Rs. 3.25ps denomination to 21passengers and thus defrauded the revenues of theCorporation leading to misconduct under Regulation 23 (x)of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963(Conduct Regulations, for short) read with Note 2 ofRegulation 9 (i) of the APSRTC Employees (CC &A )Regulations 1963 (CCA Regulations, for short).

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not commit anymisappropriation and re-issue of tickets; nor did he alterthe Statistical Return and the waybill so much so thepunishment is not justified.

It is the case of the petitioner that he collected ticket blocks together with the tray from the Assistant DepotClerk and did not verify the ticket blocks owing to shortageof time. It is his contention that the fare from Mittabaspallito Tandur was enhanced from Rs. 2.75 ps to Rs. 3.25psand that as the petitioner possesses only Rs. 2.75 pstickets, he issued the same but collected Rs. 3.25 ps fromeach of the passengers. He admitted that perhaps theticket block was not entered in the way bill by the AssistantDepot Clerk (ADC, for short) and defended that if the ADChad not so entered the ticket blocks in the waybill, thepetitioner cannot be found fault with. The learned counselfor the petitioner submitted that the block from whichtickets were issued by the petitioner indeed belongs to theCorporation. More important, it is contended by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that this is not a casewhere the petitioner collected fare from the passengers but

Conclusion

failed to issue tickets; nor is it a case where the petitionercollected excess money and issued a less denominationtickets. Admittedly, it was shown in the Statistical Returnthat the petitioner collected Rs. 3.25 ps from each of the21 passengers. He accounted for the same when the busreturned to the depot. Thus, the petitioner did not commitany misappropriation. The Corporation did not suffer anyloss and cannot claim that it was defrauded by thepetitioner. The only shortfall on the part of the petitioneris collecting the ticket blocks along with the tray withoutverifying the same under the presumption that the ADCwould properly number them in the waybill. There is nodispute that the tickets issued by the petitioner did notfigure in the waybill. In the strict sense, it is tantamount toissuing unconcerned tickets. However, it is not as thoughthe petitioner issued used tickets. The petitioner issuedtickets from the block received by him from ADC. Wherethere was no misappropriation nor was there collection oflesser fare from the passengers than required, I am afraidthat the activity of the petitioner cannot be considered tobe a misconduct of any magnitude. I do not consider thatthe Corporation has proved that the petitioner was guilty ofmisconduct and also deserved the penalty of removal from service.

The finding of the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal is without proper reasoning and isperverse. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal is setaside. The petitioner is found not guilty of the chargelevelled against him. The removal of the petitionerconsequently is set aside. The petitioner is directed to bereinstated into service with continuity of service andattendant benefits. He shall however be not entitled tobackwages from the date of removal till the date ofreinstatement.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition,shall also stand closed.

______________________________

DR.JUSTICE K.G.SHANKARDATE: 31.12.2013KA