Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Anjaiah

Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22435 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, passed I.D.No.167 of 1996, dated 26th March 1999.

2. The respondent herein was appointed as a Driver in the petitioner-Corporation and attached to the Picket Depot, Secunderabad. On 16.05.1995, he was the Driver on the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-7867 in its down journey from Bangalore to Secunderabad. While in transit, the vehicle was involved in a fire accident in the limits of Udumulapadu village near Dhone of Kurnool District. A Committee was constituted by the Corporation to inquire into the cause of accident. It appears that the said Committee has submitted a report on 27th May 1995, to the effect that there were liquor bottles wrapped in a pair of trousers belonging to the respondent/workman, and they were concealed in the bonnet of the bus, as the same were prohibited from carrying. Based on the inquiry report, disciplinary proceedings initiated against respondent/workman by framing the following charges: “1. you have carried liquor bottles in the bonnet of Bus No.AP-9Z-7867 while performing Bangalore to Picket service on 15/16-5-1995 violating the provisions of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1994 communicated through constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 [xvii] of APSRTC Employees [conduct] Reg.,1963. circulars, which

2. you have caused extensive damages to the bus No.AP-9Z-7867 Deluxe Coach in the fire accident caused on 16-5-1995 at about 2.00 village while hours at Udumulapadu incoming from Bangalore to Secunderabad on accunt of carrying highly inflammable material, namely liquor bottles, hiding them in the bonnet of bus, which act constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 [ix-A] & [xiii] of APSRTC Employees [conduct] Regulations, 1963.

3. you have reported about the fire accident to Depot Manager, Dhone only at about 6.15 hours on 16-5-1995 though the incident took place at about 2.00 hours at a distance of only 4 Kms. Away from Dhone. Further, you have not obtained the statements of the passengers but allowed them to go away with an intention to hush up the truth which tantamount to misconduct as per Regulation 28 [xxx] of APSRTC Employees [Conduct] Regulations, 1963.

4. you have not reported to Police officials for enquiry in spite of acknowledging the instructions of Senior Traffic Inspector, Dhone or submitted any information to the Depot Officials till today, which tantamount to absconding from duties and constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28 [xxvii] [Conduct] Regulations, 1963. Employees APSRTC

5. for having caused inconvenience to the passengers of Veh.No.AP-9Z-7867 who traveled in the said bus owing to the above mentioned accident on 16-5-1995 at about 2.00 hours at Udumulapadu village near Dhone, arising out of your mis-conduct and denigrate the image of Corporation, which tantamount to serious misconduct in terms [xxxi] of APSRTC of Regulation 28 Employees’ [Conduct] Regulations, 1963.”

3. The inquiry officer who was appointed in disciplinary proceedings, submitted the report against the respondent/workman stating that the charges framed against him, were proved. Based on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the respondent was removed from service vide proceedings dated 30th September 1996. The said order of removal was challenged by the respondent/workman before the Industrial Tribunal, by filing I.D.No.167 of 1996, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, by discussing the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the Corporation in detail, has recorded a finding that there was no material on record, and also no basis to hold that the respondent- employee was responsible for the charges levelled against him. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered for reinstatement of the respondent/driver to the service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages.

4. In this writ petition, it is contended by learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/Corporation that asmuch as at the stage of preliminary inquiry the delinquent/employee himself had admitted to the effect that the trousers in which the liquor bottles were wrapped, belong to him, and in that view of the matter, there was a clear case of admission by the workman, which was made basis by the inquiry officer to record a finding that the charges framed against the workman were proved. It is submitted that in that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought not have reversed the findings recorded by the inquiry officer.

5. Out of the charges framed against the petitioner, it appears that Charge No.1 is a substantive one. In respect of this charge, it was the case of the Corporation that the respondent/workman had carried liquor bottles by wrapping them in his trousers and concealing the same in the bus bonnet, while driving the bus from Bangalore to Picket on 15/16.05.1995. In the inquiry report prepared in the domestic inquiry, the inquiry officer has recorded the finding against the workman, basing only on the alleged statement recorded from the respondent during the preliminary inquiry. It is stated in the inquiry report that during his statement the preliminary inquiry, respondent/workman has admitted to the effect that the trousers, in which the liquor bottles were wrapped, belong to him. Based on the said admission alone, the inquiry officer has recorded a finding against the petitioner, but however, the Tribunal below, has held that the statement recorded during the preliminary inquiry is an exparte one, and that the said statement alleged to have been made by the respondent/workman, was also not marked the domestic inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal took the view that in the absence of the alleged statement on record in the inquiry proceedings, no adverse finding can be recorded against the respondent, based on the preliminary inquiry proceedings. Even from a perusal of the inquiry report, it is clear that there is no indication of filing such a statement, which is alleged to have been made by the respondent during the preliminary inquiry. In that view of the matter, I am in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that on mere statement alleged to have been given in the preliminary inquiry, no adverse finding can be recorded against the employee. It is a well established fact that once disciplinary proceedings are initiated by framing a charge against an employee, that charge has to be proved by placing sufficient material before the inquiry officer, in the absence of which, no adverse finding can be recorded against the employee, merely based on the preliminary inquiry. Further, even with reference to other charges of not reporting to the nearest Bus Depot and not reporting to the Police, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the same would not amount to misconduct within the meaning of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

7. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1988, and pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, he is again reinstated into service, without backwages. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. Writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th August 2008 To The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Picket Depot, Secunderabad.