WP/14541/2002 of A.Venkanna Vs The Presiding Officer, on 31 December 2012

ORDER:-

This writ petition is filed for certiorari, calling for the records fromthe 1[st] respondent pertaining to the Award dt. 12.04.2001 passed inI.D.No.160 of 1999, and quash the same, and consequently direct the2[nd] respondent-APSRTC to reinstate the petitioner into service withcontinuity of service and all attendant benefits and backwages.

2. Heard Sri V.R. Balachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, andSri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent-APSRTC.

3. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Conductor ondaily wage basis in the depot of respondent No.2. On 27.03.1999,when the petitioner was conducting the bus service fromGodavarikhani to Katkoor, at Stage No. 23/22 Vennampalli, a checkwas conducted in his bus by the concerned checking officials andcertain cash and ticket irregularities were detected. Thereafter,disciplinary enquiry was commenced against the petitioner on thefollowing charges:

1) For having violated the rule “issue & start”, whichconstitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi) (a) ofA.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (conduct) Reg.1963.constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi) (a) ofA.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (conduct) Reg.1963.

2) For having collected an amount of Rs.3/- each from abatch of two passengers total Rs.6/- and failed to issuetickets who boarded the Bs at Saidapoor and foundalighting without tickets at Vennampalli ex-stages 24 to23/22.batch of two passengers total Rs.6/- and failed to issuetickets who boarded the Bs at Saidapoor and foundalighting without tickets at Vennampalli ex-stages 24 to23/22.

3) For having closed the tray Nos. of all den. Upto stageNo. 23 without completing the above ticket issues whichconstitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (ix) (a) (xxxii)of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”.No. 23 without completing the above ticket issues whichconstitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (ix) (a) (xxxii)of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”.

4. A domestic enquiry was held and relevant checking officialswere examined and the spot explanation of the petitioner and hiswere examined and the spot explanation of the petitioner and his subsequent explanations were also received. The enquiry officerconcluded that charges were proved. Accepting the enquiry report andhaving regard to the fact that the second charge relates tomisappropriation, the 2[nd] respondent by his order dated 02.07.1999removed the petitioner from service holding that the charges wereproved.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner pursued his departmental remediesand was unsuccessful there. Thereafter, he moved an industrialdispute before the Labour Court at Godavarikhani. The Labour Court,Godavarikhani by its award dated 12.04.2011 confirmed the removaland punishment imposed by the 2[nd] respondent. It is questioning thatAward, the present writ petition is filed.

6. The main contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that in theAward, the Labour Court has not discussed the merits of the chargesand did not even consider whether the domestic enquiry was validlyheld or not, and therefore the Award should be set aside. His othercontention is that the whole domestic enquiry was lopsided one andno opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine any of thewitnesses and his explanations were also wrongly quoted andconstrued by the Enquiry Officer and also the Disciplinary Authority i.e.the 2[nd] respondent, and therefore he should be directed to reinstateinto service.

7. The record has been obtained from the Labour Court and aperusal of the domestic enquiry report, and the method and manner inwhich it was conducted, and T.T.Is., who were the checking officialswere examined, would show that it was conducted on proper lines. Itshould also be noted that the Enquiry Officer recorded the statementsof one of the checking officials Sri S.M.A. Ali, and he spoke about theirregularities detected by him and his other team-mate checkingofficial. At the end the petitioner was asked as to whether he wouldlike to cross-examine the said checking official. It is seen that the petitioner had replied in Telugu stating that he does not want to cross-examinehim.

8. The Enquiry Officer considered the above statement of thechecking official and also the statement of the two passengersrecorded by the checking officials and further found that the Conductorgave two explanations, which were contrary to each other. It is statedthat in the spot explanation the petitioner mentioned that he tookmoney from the two passengers covered by Charge No.2, but healighted from the bus suddenly to help the driver at his request toreverse the bus. But in another explanation, he came up with thestatement that the aforesaid two passengers did not take tickets at alland they boarded the bus surreptitiously. The 2[nd] respondentconsidered all these aspects, which were all discussed in the domesticenquiry report, and found the petitioner is guilty of all the threecharges. It may be noted that the second charge relates tomisappropriation.

9. The above charges and the merits in the matter were discussedby the departmental authorities also in the appeal and revision and thesame were again considered by the Labour Court. In fact, the Labourcourt discussed about the explanations of the petitioner and theevidence on record also. A perusal of the award would show that theLabour Court considered all the aspects by referring to the exhibits andconcluded that as the case was one of misappropriation, thepunishment of removal was proper one. There is no reason todisagree with this conclusion of the Labour Court and the above twocontentions of the petitioner’s counsel cannot be accepted.

10. The petitioner’s counsel further relied upon a decision of this Court given in N. Chennayya Vs. Depot Manager[[1]], wherein thiscourt directed reinstatement by modifying the punishment of removal. It may be noted that each case depends upon its own facts andcircumstances regarding the punishment imposed, and in the case relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel, the age of the Conductor was55 years and he was at the fag end of his service. 11. In the present case, it may be noted that the petitioner wasworking only on a daily wage basis and the second charge relates tomisappropriation of APSRTC money. In these circumstances, itfollows that the punishment of removal from the service can be said tobe a proper one. Accordingly, I find that there is no ground forinterfering with the award. 12. This Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall standclosed.

31[st ]December, 2012

Ssv/Ksm

_____________________________JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

W.P.No.14541 of 2002

Dated:- 31ST December, 2012

Ssv/Ksm

[1]1996 (3) ALD 466