High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned Award dt. 2s-01-2oos on the file of the 2nd respondent to the extent of denying back wages to the petitioner and continuity of service and directing that, the reinstatement of the petitioner shall be treated as fresh appointment, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequential direct the 1st respondent to pay the back wages along with continuity of service to the petitione (. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. SUNITA NAWANDAR, REp. FOR Counsel for the Respondent No..l: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SRI VIVEK JAIN SC FOR TGSRTC Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Gp FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT No.22966 oF 2()0s ORDER: This writ Petition is l-rled under Article :226 of the Constitution oI India seeking the following relief: "...fo issue a writ, order or direction more particularty orye in tLrc nature of w'rit of Mandamus bg declaring tlrc irnpugned. iword dt: 2s- o1-200s on the file of the 2"d resportdent to the extent of d.eruling back uages to the petitioner q.nd continuity of seruice and- d.irectitrgt that, the reinstatement of the petittoner shall bi treated. as fresh appointment, as being ir'legal, arbitrary and uncortstittttional and. citisequentia.l direct the l't respondent to pall the back u,eqes ctlong with continuita of seruice tc, the petitioner and pass suclt otl,-er orcler/ s crs f/rrs Hon,bL Court mag deem fit and proper in the circuntstances of the ccL:;<)...,, 2. Heard I\ils.Sunita Nawandar, learned counsel representing sri vivek Jairr, learned counsel for the petitioner; sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for Telangana state Road Transport ct>rporation, for respondent No.1; and learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointecl as conductor on 25.05. lgg4 and he ,ras removed from service uide order dated 2s.og.2ool, on the ground of certain ticket irregulzrrities. chalrenging the same, the petitioner filed appeal and review petition and the same u,ere rejectecl on 22.o4.2oo2 and rr.r2.2oo2 by rhe Divisional Manager and Regional Manra.ger, Adilabad, respectirrely. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.D.No.169 of 2003 before the Industrial Tribuna[_cum_Labour 2 wp_22966_2OOs Court, Godavarikhani, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) under Section 2-A(2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking to set aside the removal order dated 25.O9.2OO1, passed by respondent No.1. The Tribunal had partly allowed the said I.D. uide Award dated 25.O1.2OO5, directing respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages and continuity of service. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 ought to have seen that the charges against the petitioner were not proved beyond the reasonable doubt and the removal order was passed mechanically '*,ithout application of mind. Further, the removal order is disproportionate to the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Hence, respondent No.2 ought to have granted back wages and continuity of service to the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No.1 to pay back wages along with continuity of service to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Diuisional Controller u. L.H. of Kaniibahi Ramiibhai Vekarial.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.l submits that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on | 2Ol3 SCC OnLine Guj 2391 i I 3 PK,J wp 22966 2OO5 contract basi,s on 25.05.1984, later he was convertod as a daily wage Conductor w.e.f. 04.06.1985 and several p€:nalties were inflicted on the petitioner on similar grounds o[ cash and ticket irregularities prior to his removal from service. It is further submitted that basing on the oral and documcnt.;1ry evidence, Enquiry Offir:er's Report and the objections subn'ritted by the petitioner, respondent No.1 came to a conclusion that the imposition of penalty of removal from service was just and proper. Further, the Tribunal after considering the evidence and facts of the case has passed the Award holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The Tribunal ever. after holding that the cheLrges levelled against the petitioner \vere proved by observing that the previous conduct of the petirioner is not satisfactory and considering the service of the petitioner, rightly directed respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitione r into service without continuity of service and back wages. Therefore, the writ Petition is cievoid of merits. Hence, learned Stancling counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. Admitt.edly, the petitioner \vas initially appointed as conductor on contract basis on 25.0s.1994 and lar.,:r his services I 4 PK,J wp-22966-2005 were regularized w.e.f. 28.08.1985. Further, on 07-05.2OO1, while the petitioner was performing his duty in bus No.AP loz 8217 en- route from Hanamkonda to Nizamabad, a check was conducted by the checking officials, who detccted certain cash and ticket irregularities. Therefore, a charge memo was served on the petitioner uide No.AAO 1228717 d,ated 07.05.2O01, for which, the petitioner had submitted his explanation. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted enquiry report' dated

06.08.200l,torespondentNo.l.Thepetitionerhadalsosubmitted his objections to enquiry report on 21.08.2001. However, being not satislied with the said objections respondent No' 1 removed the petitioner from service uid.e ord,er datcd 25.O9-2OO1' challenging the same, the petitioner filed appeal before Divisional Manager, Karimnagar, and the same was rejected on merits uide proceedings dated22.o4.2oo2.ThepetitionerhasalsopreferredReview Petition before Regional Manager, Karimnagar' and the same was rejected on 17. t2.2OO2. Therefore, the petitioner filed I'D'No' 169 of 2OO3 before the Tribunal and by Award dated 25'01'2005, the Tribunal had partly allowed the said I.D. directing respondent No'2 to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages and continuitY of service. 5 PK..J \\'p 22966-.2O05

7. On perus;ll of the record, it is evident that the Tribunal, in the Award datecl 25.01.2005, while recording the proceclural lapses in the disciplirrary enquiry has held that the cash bag of the petitioner was not checked at the time of surprise ch<:ck i.e., on

07.05.2001. Hr:re it is relevant to refer to paragraph No.6 to 9 of L.H. of Kanjibahi Ra4iibhai Vekardiq.'s case (1 supra), which reads as follows: "6. The Industrial Tibuna\ in tlrc impugned award, after considering the material on record or the eu'idence before the ,rnquiry Officer, has recorded following fuulings:- (i) The cash balance auailable with the conductor i.s not checked. (ii) Way-bill for earlier issuance of 16 tickets was not produced c,n record. (iii) The driuer of tlrc bus was not made auailctble for e xaminatic,n or cro ss-examination. 7. In uiew of the aforesaid, it was found by the Industrial Tribunal that the charges were not proued during the course of t?rc inquiry. The contention of the learned C<>unsel for the appellant that the charges could be said a.s proued cannot be accepted for the following reasons:- (a) In a ca:;e of re-issuance of tickets, the basic two aspects are required to be satisfied; one would be that tickets, uhich were issued at the time of checking or inspection, u)ere alrectdy issued earlier and the second would be that the conductor had collected moneA after re-issuance of the said tickets. 8. On the first aspect, it is true that the ua11-bill for which issi,tance of tickets has come on record, bttt such incident o1c issuance of tickets is only uthen the ins.pection had taken place. If tlle ualid proof taas to be prodttced as that of the tickets were alreadg issued earlier, the wag-bilt lp -, 6 wp-22966_2OO5 of the respectiue joumey was required. to be produced.. once tLrcre is ualid euidence for showing that the tickets were alreadg issued during earlier trip, then only one can record the conclusion that they are re-issued. Iru the cross- examination of the reporter - uitness of the Corporation, he did make the statement that he had" checked. the earlier way-bill, but when he utas called upon to produce the same, he stated that he would produce at a later stage and t?e Industrial Tribunal has recorded the fihd"ing that such record was not produced at a later stage during the inquiry.

9. an the second aspect, if the monetary consideration is receiued by tlle conductor, which otherwise could not be made auailable on the basis of uatid issuance of tickets, such may be reflected in the cash balance of the conductor. Howeuer, in the present case, cash balance with conductor is neither checked, nor anA euidence has come on record that he uas hauing surplus cash than that of actual ualidly collected as per the utag- bill..."

8. Similarly, in the instant case also, as held by Division Bench of Gujarat High court, there is no evidence on record that any surplus cash was found with the petitioner. As the cash bag was not verified and as per the way-bill no surplus cash was found than that of actually collected, the denial o[ continuity o[ service, despite granting reinstatement, is not legally sustainable and is disproportionate to the nature of the allegations. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benelit of continuit5r of service.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benelit of continuity of service to the petitioner for all service related purposes. ' - r .i:: d1i,;"--$l;33 ;3' : " ; # 's:st;':;#i': ' '*il' jl ' 7 ;,(.J \\'p_2.2966..1{J()) Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closcd. There shall be no order as to costs. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble sRl sujoV PAUL, The Acting Ghief J.ustice on this wednesday, / the Sixteenth Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. / //TRUE COPY// SD/. S. KARJUNA RAO T N OFFICER To,

1. The Depot tVlanager, Huzurnagar, Karimnagar District' 2. The Chairrnan, lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

3. One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SiRl N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC] 5. One CC to {iRl N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC] 6. Two CCs trr Gp FOR LABOUR, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies BSR TKS I I HIGH COURT DATED:1 610712025 o t-I WP.No.22966 of 2005 .l. (( z o o 14 irEl/ &l * t.: '. ' Tf't !t: PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION , ITHOUT COSTS 10