H eard Sri v. Narasimha Goud

H eard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learne<l Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondents.

3. L,earned counsel for the petitioner submits as follor,r,s : - 'l'hat the petitioner joined in the services of the respor:dents' Corporation as a driver on 28.L2.1987 on regular basis. Since then, he worked continuously with 2 clean record of service till he was removed from service by the 2"d respondent vide order dated lo.oz.2oo2. Being aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioner made an appea_l to the DVM, and review to the rsr respondent and these were dismissed vide respective orders, dated 23.og.2oo2 & 27 -o1.2oo3. As such, questioning the action of the respondents, the petitioner raised a dispute vide I.D. No. 54 of 2OO3 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad.

4. The petitioner was asked to operate the bus service namely TIMS from Bodhan to Hyderabad. However, he requested not to send him as he w,as not conversant with the TIMS nor with the duties of the conductor. yet, he was sent on the said service forcibly without conductor. Thereby, with great care and diligence, he $,as operating the said service and while so, the check was taken place while proceeding from Bodhan to Hyderabad at stage No.2/3 alleging certain irregularities. For which, the petitioner explained that he did not commit any irregularities as alleged and it might be due to not properly functioning of rIMS. But, the 2nd respondent without J considering the same as well as his past service has suspencled the petitioner from service and issued the charge'sheet on 10.05.2002 alleging follovuing charges:

1. For hauing uiolated the rule of 'lssue & Start'

2. For hauing collected an amount o/ Rs.3O0/ - from batch of 3 passengers including one chargeable child and reissued used TIMS ticket bearing No.1 1923, dt.OS.O2.2OO2 worth o/ Rs. 51/ - onlA and failed to issue TIMS tickets to tuo other passengers who boarded the bus at Bodhan, bound for Hgderabad ex. stages O1 to 05. ji. For hauing collected en clmount of Rs.522/ - from 6 indiuidual passengers towards their journey from Nizamabad to Hgderabq.d ex. stages 2 to 5 and reissued used TIMS ticket bearing No.32607 dt. 14.O2.2O02 o/ Rs. 93/ -, 8418 dt. 16.O3.2002 of Rs.186/-, 3231 dt. 24.04.2002 of Rs.B7/-, 32608 dt. 14.O4.2OO2 of Rs.93/-, 10568 dt. OB.O2.2OO2 o/ Rs. 93/ - and. 3230 dt. 24.04.2002 of Rs.186/ - while Aou were performing duty on O1.05.2002 on route Bodhan to Hyderabad uia Nizamabad, with uehicle 1Vo. AP-102-7438 with TIMS machine. .1. For hauing collected qn qmount o/ Rs. 109/ - each totally Rs.545/- from 5 indiuidual passengers 4 and reissued used TIMS ticket bearing Nos.32S3 dt.21.04.2002 o/ Rs. 1O2/-, 32SS d"t.21.04.2002 of Rs.2 18/ - and 9153 dt. 06.04.2002 of Rs.2 18/ - who boarded the bus at Bodhan and bound. for Hyderabad ex. stages 1 to 5.' 5- For the above charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation explaining that he issued the tickets to the passengers, which were printed and given by the TIMS fixed to the service. However, after enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. while removing the petitioner from service, the respondents have failed to consider the said ticket issuing machine was not properly functioning and thereby it was giving the wrong words and dates. The same was also reported by the TTIs through their special report. Hence, the action of the respondents is bad in law.

6. After filing the counter and documents by the respondents, the court below held that the enquiry as varid and on appreciating the evidence held that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not sustainable and findings of the Enquiry officer as well as removal order ) were set aside. But while granting the relief, the Labour Court not only denied the back wages but also denied the continuity of service as well as the notional increments. Being ia.ggrieved by the above portion of relief in the impugned award, dated 20 .02.2006, the present writ petition is filed.

7. Lt:arned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit and submits as follows: T,ee petitioner was appointed as a regular Driver w.e.f. :]o.12. lg87 but not from 28.L2.1987. During the course of his service, he was inflicted with number of punishment as follows:

1. Involved in vehicle damage cases on 08.09.1989 and 15.11.1989.

2. Censured. on 25.09.1991 for his absenteeism'

3. Increment deferred for two years dated

28.01.1993, which shatl not have its effect on future increments, for having caused an accident'

4. Debited a sum of Rs.1,OO0/- towards cost of damages vide order, dated 09.03- L993. 5, Increments deferred for one year dated 19.11 .1996, which shall not have its effect on future increments for having caused an accident. 6

6. Debited a sum of Rs.400/- towards loss of E_ 1, 3 seater - seat vide order dated 2T.05.1996.

7. Pay reduced by trvo incrementar stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide order dated 29-07.2ooo for having caused an accident. subsequently, it was modified as deferment of annual increment for a period of two yea-rs without cumulative effect vide order dated r2.o7.2oot by the appellate authority. Therefore he is bereft of clean record of service.

8. on ol.o5.2oo2, while the petitioner was driver on one man Hitech bus service bearing No.Ap-loz-743g on the route Bodhan to Hyderabad, there was a check conducted by the checking officials at stage No.2/3 at about 9:4o hrs. They found that there was some c&T irregularities and examined. recorded the statement of passengers and issued a spot charge Memo to the petitioner and charge memo was submitted to the 2n) respondent. The petitioner gave explanation to the charge memo on 06-o5.2oo2- Not being satisfied r,r,ith the explanation, a chargesheet was issued. The petitioner filed an explanation to the chargesheet. Dnr*;*:r.. 7

9. /\ domestic enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and after consid.ering the entire material on record, submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. Based on the report, a Show cause Notice of removal was issued. After considering the explanation and material available on record, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed an appeal and review, which were rejected.

10. 'lhe petitioner raised an ID No:54 of 2oo3 on the file of the Labour court [[, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed a memo under section 11(A) of ID Act, not disputing the validit]' of the domestic enquiry. Therefore, the domestic enquiry was held valid. The Labour court on considering the evidence on record, set aside the removar order, dated ro.o7 .:zoo2 and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wnges. The intervening period is to be treated as 'not on duty.' 1 1. The contention of the petitioner that he was asked to operate: the bus service namely TIMs from Bodhan to 8 Hyderabad, and he requested not to send him as he was not conversant with the TIMs nor with the duties of the conductor, cannot be accepted. He was well trained Driver in discharging the duties with rlMs as he had performed so many duties earlier on TIMs. The petitioner is well conversant in operating the TIMs machine and performed the duty to earn incentive of the ticket fares. If he does not have knowledge of operation of rIMs, he should have girren in writing that he is unaware of operation of rlMs. so that he would not have been booked to perform Bodhan Hyderabad rlMs service forcibly as contended by the petitioner. He failed to do so and making false allegations to escape penalty.

12. The charges leveled against the service Driver were proved and he was removed from service after following the procedures laid down in cc&A Regulations Lg6T. The contention of the petitioner that the ticket issuing Machine was not functioning properly and thereby given the wrong words and dates, cannot be accepted as there were 23 other passengers, who were having correct tickets clearly I speaks that the petitioner issued used tickets to pocket money. Further, if the ticket issuing machine was not functioning properly, he should have stopped the bus either zrt Bodhan or at Nizamabad and informed the matter to the'l'raffic Supervisor for arranging booking. But, he had failed to do so. The penalty awarded is quite commensurate with that of serious irregularities committed by the petitioner. In view of the above the w,rit petition is liable f<rr dismissal. FINDIIYGS OF THE COURT:

13. A perusal of the record shows that the Labour Court while setting aside the removal order observed that the Enquinr officer had committed a mistake by not collecting the Expert's report about the functioning of the TIMS machine though he considered that the machine was wrongll' printing the dates. The Enquiry officer had failed to consider the material in the special report of checking officials, dated o2.o5.2oo2 that the machine was not only printing the wrong dates and printing the wrong words. Therefore, the Enquiry officer ought to have given the I t0 benefit of doubt considering wrong functioning machine was given to the petitioner. In the said circumstances, charges as framed by the authorities were not considered. On this ground only, Labour Court set aside the removal order dated IO'O7 '2OO2'

14. While setting aside the removal order, Labour court directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages and the intervening period is to be treated as "not on duty." Aggrieved by the above said direction, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the removal period as on duty; to grant notional increments and back wages. To support this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Depot Manage4 APSR"C, Gunfitr District and another Vs. Ch. Suresh Babu qnd anotherr with regard to punishment of removal from service and denial of back wages, and while setting aside the same, the Court observed as follows: t 2Or9(2) ALD 264 (DB) *Ttrc settled" legal pinciple that still holds the field is that if the terunination from seruice is shoun to be ill<;gal and the employee/ workman concerned was relTularly appointed and had put in substantial seruice, he would be entitled to full back wages subject to his nct hauing been gainfullg emploged after hts wrongful tei'mination from seruice. "

15. In the case on hand also, the petitioner was removed from s€:rvice without conducting proper enquiry and the same removal order was challenged before the Labour Court. Labour Court also while setting aside the removal ord.er, clenied the back wages. [n view of the settled legal principle and following the dictum laid down in the above said ju<lgment, if the removal order is illegal, denial of the back wages as considered b-v the Labour coLlrt, cannot be legally sustainable. Since the petitioner had been wrongfully prevented from attending to his duties by the said re'moval order and it would not be open to the authorities to deprive him of the remuneration which he would have earned had he been permitted to work. Hence, the pet,tioner is entitled to get the back \rrages also. \-rl' t2 16- The Labour court rightly found that the intervening period is to be treated as "not on duty", which needs no interference by this court. with regard to notional increment, there is no averment in the I.D. and also in the Award. In the said circumstances, the question of granting notional increment does not arise. More So, when the intervening period is treated as "not on duty", the question of granting notional increment does not arise.

17. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent authorities are dilecled to consider the case of the petitioner and grant back wages from the date of removal till his reinstatement.

18. with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed t I To, SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ANT REGISTRAR ST -j //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Regional lt/lanager, {l![TC' Nizamabad Region' Nizamabad' 2. The Depot rrnunjgJiXFSlr-q, s;" b?p"f eoOr.ai, N,amabad District' 3. one cc to sni]V]'rllAiRlslMHn coub Advocate [oPucl 4. one cc to snrl'rri. sRubiiMArl nE66v i5c-FoR Tcsnrc zoNE 1 ) 5. Two CD CoPies IOPUCI B IVl TKS St (,. HIGH COURT DATED i2:,411012025 ORDER WP.No.19130 of 2006 1r,..- T ' ,1) ti..'i ':" * Tl.iE $ t (. :, 7 4 Fr8 202$ :1 * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?-t\2\>6