Telangana High Court
WP/19534/1999 of M.Krishnaji, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19534 of 1999 Between: M.Krishnaji. … Petitioner And The Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER,TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.19534 of 1999
Between:
M.Krishnaji.
… Petitioner
And
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, retpd., by itsSecretary, Labour, Employment, Training andFactories (Lab-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad and three others.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.RamamohanMahadeva.
Counsel for respondents : Sri K.Madhava Reddy forR.3 and R.4.
This Court made the following:
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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari toquash award dated 26-4-1999 passed in I.D.No.99 of1998 and order dated 10-9-1986 passed by respondentNo.3.
Heard Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy,learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.
The petitioner was a conductor of APSRTC. On the basis of a check administered while he wasconducting bus bearing No.APZ 8925 on routeSadasivapeta-Vikarabad on 8-3-1986, disciplinaryproceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Acharge sheet was issued with the following charges:“1. For having violated the rule ‘ISSUE & START’without any reasonable cause.
2. For having failed to issue tickets to nine passengers(individuals and batches) found traveling without ticketsfrom Sadasivapet to Mekavonampalli (Ex-stages 16 to 15, even after collecting the requisite fare”.
After considering the explanation of the petitioner,an enquiry officer was appointed and on consideringthe enquiry report, a show cause notice for removal wasissued on 1-8-1986 to which the petitioner submitted hisexplanation on 11-8-1986. By order dated 10-9-1986the petitioner was removed by respondent No.3. Appealfiled by the petitioner was dismissed by respondentNo.4 by his order dated 12-12-1987. Almost sevenyears later, the petitioner raised an industrial disputeunder Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 held that theenquiry held by the domestic Tribunal was valid. TheTribunal, after analyzing the evidence on record,concurred with the finding of the disciplinary andappellate authorities about the guilt of the petitioner. TheTribunal also considered the past conduct of thepetitioner in holding that the penalty of removal fromservice is not disproportionate to the gravity of theproven misconduct. The petitioner filed the present WritPetition questioning the above said orders.
At the hearing, the learned counsel for thepetitioner advanced the only contention viz., that thepenalty of removal of the petitioner is disproportionate tothe gravity of offence. Respondent No.2 considered this aspect in its award and it is relevant to reproduce therelevant portion hereunder:
“That leaves the only question of quantum ofpunishment. The service record of the petitionerreveal startling facts. He was appointed on 3-7-1972and within 5 days Rs.100/- of security deposit wasforfeited, he was warned severely on 25-11-1972 forissuing lower denomination tickets even aftercollecting higher fares. Like that he was alsosubsequently warned twice in the same year ofappointment and by December, 1972 an amount ofRs.50/- from this security was again forfeited. Thenext year is not different in any way as he wasseverely warned on 17-2-1973 and 19-2-1973, 24-2-1973 which is on two counts. Again he was warnedon 17-3-1973 and on 2-5-1973 his security depositwas again forfeited. The process of warnings seemsto have never abated during 1973. Apart from thenumerous warning, his increment was deferred for 12months on 14-8-1973 followed by numerous warningsuntil November, 1973 when he was suspended. In1974 also his deposit of Rs.200/- was forfeited andthe suspension period was not treated as dutyfollowed by a severe warning for ticket irregularitiesand on 3-7-1974 he was again suspended and on 17-9-1974 he was removed. It appears that he wasreinstated as a fresh conductor which was also notfree from frequent severe warnings. And on 9-5-1975one increment was deferred with cumulative effect.This is the day on which he was double punished.Again he was suspended on 10-6-1975 followed by asevere warning and on 29-8-1975 he was removedfrom service and it appears that he was reinstatedinto service on appeal. Again he was placed undersuspension and removed from service on 10-9-1986.All these punishments are for ticketing irregularities.The Management appears to have tested its patiencefor too long. The timing of the punishments clinches that the petitioner has become habitual in committingirregularities. The present irregularity under which hewas removed is a clear case that he has becomehabitual in misappropriating the revenues of themanagement”.
The hoary past of the petitioner does not entitlehim to plead for any mercy whatsoever. His history,which is indeed shameful, does not entitle him to evenraise the contention that the punishment of removal isdisproportionate, much less shockinglydisproportionate, to the proven misconduct. Thepetitioner has not disputed any of the past instancesproving his utter lack of integrity and honesty. Such aperson cannot be allowed to be employed in a publicutility Corporation, such as APSRTC. I do not, therefore,find any reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the ordersimpugned in this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
---------------------------------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,
J
Date:30-12-2008MNR