WP/23974/2001 of A.Venkata Reddy, Vs The Honble Labour Court - III, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:-

The petitioner herein was a conductor of the first respondent since1996. On 12-05-1998 when he was on duty from Yadagirigutta to Deveruppal and the bus was checked at Stage No.16 at 8.30 A.M andthere are said to be irregularities noticed by the checking staff. A chargememo was given with the following charges.

1) “For having violated the rule “Issue & Start” which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC, Employee’s (Conduct)Regulations, 1963”.

“You have collected the requisite ticket fare of Rs.5/- from 13passengers at boarding point itself, who boarded the bus at Ramaramand alighting at Vastakondur, Ex-stages 12 to 16 and issued ticketsbearing No.097/755593 to 595, E.3-097/955598 to 599, E.2-097/7555600to 603, E.4 and 097/955605 to 608 of E.4 of Rs.5/- den., worth of Rs.65/-on the above said tickets boarding state is 1 and alighting stage No. (5)punching is found. The above said tickets were already sold out at stageNo. (1) and also accounted in the S.R. Hence, the said tickets were notaccepted and obtained TPT No. 097/755621 to 633 of Rs.5/- den., E-13,which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a)(xxiii) of APSRTCEmployees (Conduct) Reg. 1963”.

“You have closed all the denominations in the S.R. upto check pointi.e., stage No.16 without completing ticket issues, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg. 28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963”.

“You have absented to your duties unauthorisedly from 19-5-1998 to22-5-1998 and still without any intimation or take prior permission fromyour immediate supervisors, Reg. 28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees(Conduct) Reg. 1963”.

The petitioner submitted an explanation contending that he is notguilty of any of the charges and the check was conducted by the officers isnot proper and no incriminating material was seized and there is no proofof charge No.4 and therefore the enquiry conducted by the departmentalauthorities and the consequential order passed holding that the chargesare proved and the consequential order of removal which was upheld bythe second respondent is not valid. The petitioner has suffered loss andtherefore the petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Industrial Tribunal and the disciplinary authority is not proper. It is to benoted that in this writ petition the court is not inclined to go into the meritsof the charge or the particulars of the evidence since the scope ofredressal is less. The only scope available for consideration is whetherthere is any violation of principles of natural justice and whether thepetitioner was denied any opportunity to defend. In fact in the grounds ofappeal, no such facts were mentioned and on the other hand thepetitioner was represented by a representative on his side and in factcase law was also placed before the Tribunal. Evidently, the appreciationof evidence made by the disciplinary authority and the Industrial Tribunalis final and I do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion aboutthe reasoned orders given by the lower authorities. The only question iswhether the imposition of the punishment of removal is hardship andwhether it can be interfered or not.

Conclusion

In fact the order of the second respondent clearly deals with eachof the contentions raised by the petitioner in point No.16 under items 1 to7. Such appreciation of the evidence cannot be interfered by this court. Infact accepting the contention of the appellant, the second respondent hasfound that charge No.4 is not proved. However, the other charges areproved. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that charge isonly with regard to the petitioner has resorted to sell the old tickets,amounting to a sum of Rs.65/- which is a paltry sum and the punishmentimposed is disproportionate. But the second respondent has givensufficient reasons to hold that the conduct of the petitioner is clearlyviolative and trust placed in him by the management and did not interferewith the alleged punishment. In this connection, the counsel for the firstrespondent relied upon a decision reported in Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma([[1]])which clearly lays down thatwhen misconduct is upheld there is no justification to order reinstatement.Therefore, keeping in view of the above principle, there are no merits inthis writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

_______________________

N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J

TSNR

[1](2002) 10 SCC 330