W.P No. 8671 of 2005 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

on behalf of both the parties and no document was marked on behalf of the petitioner, Exs.M-1 to M-20 were marked on behalf of the respondents. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the management was valid and proper and the charges are proved in full; therefore, the order of removal passed by the management does not call for any interference and, as such, dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel the petitioner strenuously contended that this is not a case of misappropriation of money or there is any dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. The main charge is only that though the petitioner issued tickets, collected money and the tickets were punched, they were not accounted in the S.R. and the S.R. was closed for the further stages also.

This was a mistake on the part of the petitioner, but he had no intention to misappropriate the funds of the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the charge could not have been taken so seriously by the management ordering his removal from service. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy supported the order passed by the Labour Court and contended that the past conduct of the petitioner was also not good. When the petitioner collected money, issued tickets and punched them, he ought to have accounted the same in the S.R. wherever they were issued. Though he has closed the S.R. against those stages, he had not accounted them. This itself shows that had the check not been taken place, the petitioner would have used the tickets in the next journey or in the onward journey and could have made money. Even otherwise, this is a misconduct which cannot be ignored and it cannot be said to be trivial in its nature.

Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court confirming the order of removal dated 5.1.1999 passed by the respondent-management. I have given my earnest consideration respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. It may be necessary to notice the charges leveled against the petitioner, which read as follows: “Charge No.1: For having failed to observe rule “issue, close & start which is a misconduct in terms of Reg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Charge No.2: You have collected fare from three passengers (2+1) t.1 Rs.52/- and you have punched Rs.52/- value tickets 061/662216 to 218 of Rs.50/- t.3 tickets and 285/981611 to 613 of Rs.2/- den. T.3 and issued to these passengers who boarded your bus at Manuguru bound for to 1 but you have not HNK ex-stages 19 accounted in the SR at Manuguru and you have closed Rs.50/- den.

As 213 up to HNK in the statistical return No.901/046 dt. 29.8.98 which amounts to misconduct u/r 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. Charge No.3: In the SR No. 901/046 dt. 29.8.98 Rs.50/- den. Was closed as 213 up to stage No.21 whereas from stage No.21 to 19 it was shown as 216 and again it was closed as 213 from stage No.19 to 1 which amounts to misconduct u/4 28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct)Reg. 1963. Charge No.4: You have closed the Rs.50/- den. From stage No.14 to No.1 in advance which amounts to misconduct u/r 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.163. Charge No.5: For having made alterations in the statistical returns maintained by you as shown above which amounts to misconduct u/r 28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”. As seen from the above charges, they are very serious in nature. Though the petitioner collected money, issued tickets and punched them, he did not issue the same to the passengers concerned and he was holding the same with him.

Further, he did not account for those tickets in the S.R. at Manuguru, the stage against which they were issued having closed the S.R. for Rs.50/- denomination tickets as 213 up to Hanamkonda in the statistical return. This cannot be said to be a non-serious misconduct. The S.R. was closed from stage to stage against Rs.50/- denomination tickets but he did not account for these tickets. This is a very serious misconduct and it was proved in full. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was innocent or that the charges are not proved. Apart from this, the past conduct of the petitioner was also not good. He had suffered censure three times, deferment of annual increments five times, placed under suspension four times and removed from service earlier one time in 1983 for the similar misconduct of cash and tickets irregularities. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 02-02-2011. MVB.