R.Shankaraiah v. consequently direct the

ORDER Heard Sri P.Venkateswara Rao, learne:Ci counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel frlr TSRTC appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. The oetitioner aD roached the Coul,t seekinq praver as under: " ...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ oF certiorar r:alling for the records relating to the award in 36/201(; lt-2t)- 3-2020 on the file of 2"c respondent herein and declare the award in dismissing of the said ID is bad arbitrary and illegal by quashing the same and conse quentiy direct the respondents to reinstate the petition€,r service with all consequential service benefits including continuity of service, attendant benefits and frll back wages and pa ss...... "

3. The c se of the Detitioner in brief as oer the averments made in the affidavit filed bv 2 S\. I \p 1l8l 20ll Detition ers rn suDD ort of the Drese nt writ Detition is as i) The petitioner was appointed as a Contract Conductor in 2010 through a regular selection process and discharged his duties satisfactorily until the petitioner was terminated from service on 08.10.2015 on the allegation that the petitioner collected an amount oF Rs.1B0/- from six passengers and issued a white drink roll paper with handwritten fare instead of printed tickets ii) The petitioner filed departmental appeal, review and mercy petition and the same were rejected. iii) Thereafter, the petitioner filed i.D. No.36 of 2016 beFore the 2nd respondent i.e, Additional Industrial Tribunal - cum - Additional Labour Court, Chandra Vihar, and the same was dismissed vide award dated 20.03.2020. Aggrieved by the said award dated 20.03.2020, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- I i 1 I : I I I t, $ 4! q;n.<{€f:{r -+rz ---7 J s:!-'. J ,\t : 8l :0:-l (A) The char fram a ainst h e titioner is extracted hereunder: "...For having collected Rs.180/- fronr a batch of Six (6) passengers at boarding point tsr,lf and issued one white paper taken out from prnt roll writinq 6X30= 180/- with his own hand wr i'irrg to a sard batch of 6 passengers who have boarjPd at Jyothinagar (Attapur) and bound fcr Phisaibanda (Babanagar) ex-staqe 30 to 21 rrd obtained -tPT No.30040 for Rs.30X6= 180/- yrtri,:h shows your gross negligence, carelessness and misappropriation in discharging the dLrtiis resulting in loss of revenue to the corporat on, which corrstitutes misconduct in terms of Cir. No.PD-05/2009, dt:23.2.2009 in Annexure I, Serial No.5 of VC & lt4D". (B) The conclusion rrived at in the impu qned order dated 2O.O3.2 O2O oassed in I.D. No. f 2016 is extracted hereunder: "...18. Perused the evidence on rei:ord. Petitioner is having same history even pri,:r to this. As per his Service Register once he rvas removed f rom the services in the year 20 1:; itnd joined later on 8.11.2013. Respondent corporation imposed penalty of Rs. 2OOO / - against the petitioner involved in cash ::nd ,+ s\. r $n rtSl:013 ticket irregularity on 26.6.2Ot4. Therefore, this court safely came to a conclusion that petitioner is habitual offender committed similar offences even prior to this €ase. Hence, the removal of the petitioner is justified and it is proportionate to his misconduct.

19. In the above said circumstances, this Court safely came to a conclusion that petitioner not entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly, the issue no.2 answered in favour of the respondent against the petitioner. Issue No.3:

21. In view of the discussions made in Issue No.L and 2, termination oF the petitioner from the services dt: 8.10.2015 is justified and there is no any irregularity. Hence, the petitioner not entitled any relief as claimed by him. Therefore, this petition dismissed without costs. In the result, the petition is dismissed

22. without costs." i I i t : I ! E I I l : ! t ! I ! I *ffiFF=z '7 ) rLn lllll S\-, J ltl2-j c) TJre relevant procedure stipulated rrnder' Ticket Checkin Pr r R eixtracted h ere u nd er: "'fher Checking Officials should try to colle(-t independent. evidence of fellow-passengers or d 1',er r;f the buses rvheTever possible and also record he furll address of the passengers connected with irn:r;L;larrl,l and witnesscs if any while framing charges." D) Clause 4 ol Circular No. 04/2OOa- qPp(HES) dated 08.02.2018, issued by the Vice-Chair rTan and Manaqinq Director, A.P. State Road ltan.Epe$ cor ooration, is extracted h ereunder: "4. Collection of i nde endent evidence: 1he checklng officials should collect evidence c,f fellow passenger or drivers of the buses wrr:Tev,:r possible and also record full addresses of pasr;e ngers connected with irregularities and witnesses, if any, while fra.ning charges." DISCUSSION AND CONCLU SION:- 5, Learned counsel aDoeaflnq on behalf of the Detitioner mainly Duts forth the followinq submissions: 6 'l SN. J $p ,1r 8t r0rl i) In the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the petrtioner committed the alleged offence il) None of the fellow passengers were examined, and none of the drivers of the buses were examined to orove the charge alleged against the petitioner. iii) There was no independent evidence collected during the enquiry as required under Clause 4 oF the circular instructions dated 08.02.2008. It was mandatory for the checking officials to collect the evidence of fellow passengers or drivers of the buses wherever possible, and also to record the full addresses of the passengers connected with the alleged irregularities, as well as any witnesses, while framing the charges. The said circular guidelines under Clause 4 dated 08.02.2008 issued by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation were not followed by the checking officia ls. iv) The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge alleged against him. ) I ! i ! I ! i i ! I I I E I =ffi 7 SN] rn,1'tl 201.1 Based on the aforesaid submissions. learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the petltione r submits that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as; p ra ved for in the Dresent writ petition.

6. Learnec Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nr,1, placing reliance on the averments; m.lle in the counter affidavrt fiied on behalf of the responJ,:nt trlo.1, contends tha1, the disciplinary action against the lletitroner was taken based on the evidence available on ret:ord, following due procedure and the circular instructicrs issued from time to I,ime, and there was no violatic-r of the corporation's circular instructions as allegec by the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel apperaing on behalf of the respondents thal, the petitioner, with an intention to pocket the rrrnourrt oF Rs,L80/-, issLred a white paper from the TIMS m:r:hiner and wrote "6 x :i0 = 1B0" in his own handwriting, and iF the check had not taken place, the petitioner rnrould have misapproprialed the legitimate revenue of the C:c rporation and the same clearly shows the malafide intent.ion of the 8 SN, J \p ll8-r 20li petitioner. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the impugned order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Labour Court and the petitioner approached this Court after a delay oF three years and, having shown no interest in his job and his pleas cannot be considered, and hence, the writ petition needs to be dismissed. 7, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner filed a reply atfidavit to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, disputing the averments made jn the counter affidavit and further contended that the counter-affidavit does not answer the specific pleas of the petrtioner regarding the failure to produce the alleged passengers in the enquiry, the failure to record their addresses, and the failure to count the bus cash on the spoi at the time of the check. Since these grounds raised by the petitioner remain unanswered in the counter-affidavit, it is contended that the writ petition needs to be allowed and the petitioner should be reinstated afresh.

8. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 20.03.2020 on the file of the respondent No.2 clearly I i t I I I a--a-a -:jgj#:4F=!4ti+- iY, l'f!t -:: --: ., ,,. .t/ ,/ { I : I i I i Ii I ! I i ! 9 Snv, .I *p I 133 202j indicates tha: it was passed by taking into consideration the petitroner's Drevious record and by observingl thal. the petitioner had similar history of misconduct. It \vas loted that the petitioner had earlier been removed fronr servlce in thc year 2013 and was reinstated on 08.11.20 13. and that the respondent Corporation had imposed a penalty of Rs 2,000/- on the petitioner For involvement n a C&T irrcgularities case vide Dt\4/UPL O/o No.02l95(430)i2013- U PL, dated 26.34,2014. The 2nd responden't had arrived at a unilateral conclusion that the Detitioner is a habitual offender who had committed simil ar Offences prior to the Dresent incident an d therefore, this Court opines that tfir e imouoned order as borne on record and as admitted bv learned counsel for the res oo nde nts had be e 2nd reSpandent takino into consideration the Dast histornOf the assed b en o petitaon e r.

9. This Court opines that there is no jusii 'ication tn holding the petitioner guilty of the charge level(ld against the petitioner by relying only on petitioner's pr-{3vious l0 S\..I rt I Itll loll conduct, without properly inquiring into the present charge sheet dated 18.04.2015 issued to the petitioner in accordance to law and without passing a reasoned order specifically addressing the allegations in the said charge sheet. This Court opines that the 2nd respondent ought to have arrived at a conclusion on the present charge independently, rather than imposing punishment upon the petitioner by taking into consideration only the petitioner's past record. Hence, this Court opines that the subject issue requires reconsideration by the 2nd respondent herein.

10. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATI ON: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The averments made in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, w I' I I I I I I i s\. I \\'|] l l8l 2021 The vlrrit Detition is allowed, and the_[atter is reman ded to _tbe Additional Indus rLtfldl:.cutrl- Labour Cou rt, Hvd erabad, to reconsider I. D, No. 36 of 2016 on its own merit rn acco rda n eto laW,_ !y affo rdinq rea sonable ODD o rtu n itv to both Detiti oner and the resoo n dents. Th d i rected Trjbunal is to adi u d icate the matter afresh and Dass a reasoned ord er within a period of three (:l) months from the e of receiotofa coDv oft pres nt char(l s pecifi callv dealin gwr th th aqarn st the petitioner as o r the charq sheet dated 8.04 O15 issuedto he hrs_sldcr- r^,ith ut reference ti on r h itio n er'se rlier service hi o there shall be no order as to costs. o l{owever, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending rn this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. t t //TRUE COPY// SD/- t,. SUDIIA SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER s The Depot lr/la n a er, TSRTC, Uppat Bus Depot, The Presiding officer, Additional lnd ustrial Trib Chandra Vihar, M J Road, H yderabad, T S One CC to SRI P VENKAT ESWAR RAO, Advocate loPrJCl One CC to SR R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC loPUCl Two CCs to G P FOR LABOUR, High Court for the S tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [Ourl Two CD Copi -[elangana abad, State rrn- Addl. Labor Cou(, To, 1 2 3 4 5 BSR D HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 CC TODAY c $ CrF if; .\ ,\ q lt: -) o$.un 1) c,t f^ \\ q, At+ ORDER WP.No.4183 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS *,t ^ \h \ I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I i I I I I I I i ! i t