WP/23084/2001 of B.TATA RAO Vs D.M. APSRTC KHAMMAM on 31 December 2010

ORDER:-

The petitioner herein was a conductor of the first respondent since1994 and on 12-03-1997 when he was on route Kothagudem to Tekulagudem at stage No.3 checking officials exercised the check and found some irregularities and later framed the following charges:-

1) “For having failed to observe the rule “Issue and Start” which is amisconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees(Conduct) Reg. 1963”.misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees(Conduct) Reg. 1963”.

2) “For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of two passengerseven after collecting the requisite fare at their boarding point itselffound alighting without tickets at Anichettipally, having boardedyour bus at Seetharampuram ex-stages 4 to 3, which is amisconduct under Reg. 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees(Conduct) Reg. 1963”.even after collecting the requisite fare at their boarding point itselffound alighting without tickets at Anichettipally, having boardedyour bus at Seetharampuram ex-stages 4 to 3, which is amisconduct under Reg. 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees(Conduct) Reg. 1963”.

3) “For having had been cash excess by Rs. 25/- which is amisconduct under Reg.28 (xxiv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct)Reg. 1963”.misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct)Reg. 1963”.

4) “For having failed to attest the passengers statement and failed toacknowledge the receipt of charge memo, which is a misconductunder Reg. (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations,1963”.acknowledge the receipt of charge memo, which is a misconductunder Reg. (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations,1963”.

Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and afterconsideration the explanation and material, the charges were heldproved and the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved bythe said order, the petitioner preferred an industrial dispute to thesecond respondent and the Tribunal after considering the evidenceand material dismissed the claim and questioning the same the WritPetition is filed for issuance of necessary directions in the nature ofCertiorari and to declare that the actions are illegal and arbitrary, andviolative of principles of natural justice.

The petitioner challenges the order on the ground that hisapplication was not considered and according to him he was attendingto the passengers from rear to front and he did not touch the pointunder Charge No.2. Since one of the passengers who boarded atSitharampuram picked up a quarrel and when he was trying toconvince him, in the mean time, the bus reached the stage No. 3. The statement said to have been given by the passengers to thechecking staff is not correct. Further more, the petitioner has gotclean record and the order causes hardship.

The first respondent filed a counter denying the allegations in the plaint. The claim of the petitioner that he has got clean record as disputed by the fact that he was censured three times, incrementswere deferred two times and suspended three times and removedfrom service three times. There are no irregularities committed in thedisciplinary inquiry and proper opportunity was given and theexplanation given by the petitioner for not issuing the tickets isbelated. Therefore, the first respondent pleaded for the dismissal ofthe writ petition.

Conclusion

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orderof the Industrial Tribunal and the disciplinary authority is not proper. Itis to be noted that in this writ petition, the court is not inclined to gointo the merits of the charge or the particulars of the evidence sincethe scope of redressal is less. The only scope available forconsideration is whether there is any violation of principles of naturaljustice and whether the petitioner was denied any opportunity todefend. In fact, in the grounds of appeal, no such facts werementioned and on the other hand the petitioner was represented by arepresentative on his side and in fact case law was also placedbefore the Tribunal. Evidently, the appreciation of evidence made bythe disciplinary authority and the Industrial Tribunal is final and I donot find any reason to come to a different conclusion about thereasoned 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. Evidently, though the petitionerclaims that he has got clean record, from the counter of the firstrespondent, there are several accusations against him of misconductand the petitioner did not dispute the same. In such circumstances,and when there is repeated misconduct, it is not the pleasure of theemployer to continue the employee in service. In this connection, thecounsel for the first respondent relied upon a decision reported inRegional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma([[1]])whichclearly lays down that when misconduct is upheld there is nojustification to order reinstatement. Therefore, keeping in view of theabove principle, there are no merits in this writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as tocosts.

31-12-2010

TSNR

[1](2002) 10 SCC 330

_______________________

N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J