Telangana High Court
WP/1484/2004 of The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Shadnagar. Vs Sri.M.A.Aziz, on 30 December 2010
L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1484 OF 2004 ORDER: The 1st respondent was initially appointed as a Conductor in the APSRTC and thereafter he became Depot Clerk in the year 1997, duly earning promotions and was working in the Shadnagar Depot. On 06-02-1997, he received stock of tickets
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.1484 OF 2004
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 1[st] respondent was initially appointed as a Conductor inthe APSRTC and thereafter he became Depot Clerk in the year 1997,duly earning promotions and was working in the Shadnagar Depot. On 06-02-1997, he received stock of tickets from the Regional Office andacknowledged the receipt thereof, after verification. However, 70blocks of tickets of denomination of Rs.10/- (total worth Rs.70,000/-)were found missing. He did not report that fact till 17-02-1987. A charge sheet was issued to him on 11-03-1997 framing relevantcharges. The 1[st] respondent submitted his explanation. Not satisfiedwith that, the petitioner appointed an Enquiry Officer and taking thereport of the Enquiry Officer into account, the petitioner passed anorder, dated 27-10-1997, directing removal of the 1[st] respondent fromservice.
2. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the 1[st] respondent filed I.D. No.140 of 2000 before the Labour Court – III,Hyderabad, under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short ‘the ID Act’). The Labour Court passed an award, dated 05-06-2003, setting aside the order of removal. Since the 1[st]respondent attained the age of suprannuation during the pendency ofthe I.D, the period between the date of removal and the date ofsuperannuation, was directed to be treated as duty and full backwages were awarded. Petitioner challenges the award.
3. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri P. Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent.
4. One of the duties of the 1[st] respondent was, to maintain thestock of tickets under security. It is not in dispute that he received thestock of tickets on 06-02-1997. After he acknowledged the receipt ofstock, it was found that 70 blocks of tickets, of denomination of Rs.10/-,were missing. The respondent is said to have not reported the fact ofmissing of tickets to the petitioner immediately. It was only on 17-02-1997 that the said fact was noticed. On the basis of these allegations, the following charges were framed:
“i) For having failed to check the indentNo.227/Exp. dt.6.2.97 properly in your duty on6.2.97, resulting 70 blocks of Rs.10/- demn. isamounting to Rs.70,000/- were missing, whichconstitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix.a) ofAPSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regs.1963.
ii) For having failed to inform the missing tickets information till the date of 17.2.97 eventhough which have been missed through indentNo227/Exp. Dt.6.2.97, which constitutes misconductunder Reg.28 (ix.a) of APSRTC Employees(Conduct) Regs.1963.
iii) For having slack supervision on thesubordinate staff, which constitutes misconductunder Reg.28 (vii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct)Regulations, 1963.”
5. The 1[st] respondent filed his explanation in the disciplinaryproceedings. His plea was that it is the duty of the Assistant DepotClerk to keep the tickets in a safe condition. The petitioner did notaccept that plea, and ultimately an order of removal was passed.
5. The Labour Court was impressed mostly by the fact that the 1[st] respondent has put in 30 years of service and at the relevant pointtime he was admitted to hospital and hardly he had 10 months of leftover service. Another observation was to the effect that the
1[st] respondent did not get any financial benefit out of the missingtickets. In a way, it can be said that the Labour Court was not at allconsistent in its approach, nor was clear in its findings. Its emphasiswas mostly upon the quantum of punishment and it bestowed itsattention to the aspect of sympathy. There is no specific finding to theeffect that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated or that the findingsrecorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. Assuming that theLabour Court exercised its discretion under Section 11A of the Act, itcannot go to the extent of setting at naught the entire punishment andawarding full back wages. The record discloses that the respondenthad since attained the age of superannuation and in compliance withthe condition imposed by this Court, while granting interim stay, 50% ofthe back wages were paid. Hence, the award passed by the LabourCourt is modified to the extent of reducing the back wages to 50%.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying theaward passed by the Labour Court to the extent of reducing the back wages to 50%. There shall be no order as to costs.
December 30, 2010.KTL
____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J