P.KISHANDAS v. 1. The Depot Manager

Order

This rvrit petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.20O6 passed in I.D.No.26 of 2OO5 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad (for short the Labour Court')

2. Ht:ard sri V.Narasinrha Goud, learned counsel appear:_ng for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents'

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (e0 The petitioner joined the service of the respor:.dents' Corporation as a Conductor on 2l.ol.lgg7 and his services were regularized on

01.01.1998. On 08. L2.2OO3, while the petitioner was condu cting the bus service in between Ieeja and Sindhanoor, a check was exercised at Stage No.1O i.e., Merrirloddi and issued a memo alleging as follows :- E_.--_-_ *- <: . :' :1. ., ti;ri i. .r"ffii 2 " (1) I forgotten to obserue the rule of issue of tickets and start; (2) Collected Rs.13/- eachfrom (2) passengers and" not issued. tickets to them iho found trauelling from leeja and Sindhanoor and (3) closed fhe SR upto stage No'10''2 (b)Thepetitionerfiledanexplanationtothe said charge memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1't respondent suspended the petitioner on 15.t2.2OO3 and issued charge-sheet frarning the following charges' 4 1. For hauing faited to obserue tle rule issue and.startwhichconstitutesmisconductunder Reg.28 (ui) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg' .

2. For hauing collected an' amount of Rs'26'O0 attheboardingpointleejaitselfandfailedtoi"ssue tickets to a batch of tuo (2) passengers, who were trauelling without tickets from Ieeja to sindhanoor (ex-stage l[os.8 to 15), ulhich constitutes misanduct und.er Reg.28(ui) (a) of APSRTC EmploAees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

3. For hauing closed the SR against t?rc stage No.lO without issuing the tickets to aboue hpo passengerswhichconstitutesmisconductunder ,.1 L_l Efl BI Edi, J 1 J Reg.28(ui) (a) of APSR?C Emplogees (Conduct) Reg.

7963.". (c) The petitioner submitted an explanation denying, the charges levelled against him. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the l"t respondent passed order dated LT .O4.2OO4 removing the petitioner from se rvice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the sarne was dismisr;ed on 3O.09.2OO4. Challenging the order, dated 3O.O9.i2OO4, the petitioner filed I.D.No.26 of 2OO5 before the La-bour Court and the same was dismissed oh 18.09.2006. Questioning the order, dated

18.09.:2006, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court is contra4r to the material on record. The l-abour Court failed to appreciate that the -r I 4 passengers in question clearly deposed that due to their own fault, they could not tender the fare at the rate of Rs. l3l- each inspite of conductor's request. With regard to the said deposition, neither the enquiry officer sought any clarification nor the passengers in question were cross-examined by the TTIs.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not collected fare of Rs. l3l - as alleged by the respondents. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer is nothing but perverse, as the petitioner has not issued tickets to the passengers in question for not tendering Rs. 13 / - each towards fare. The l.t respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed the order dated 17.o4.2oo4 removing the petitioner from service and the same was erroneously confirmed by the appellate authority as well as Labour Court. 5 6 . Th erefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the wrjt petition by setting aside the Award dated L8.O9.2006 passed in I.D.No.26 of 2OO5 by the Labour Court and allow the writ petition. 7 . The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The petitioner joined the service of the Corporation on 21.O1.1997 as a casual conductor and his se:wices were regularized. During his service, he was inrposed several punishments. The petitioner was censured twice and his increments were deferred 1 1 times 1:rior to his involvement in the present case. (lr) On O8.L2.2OO3, while the petitioner was perforrning duty as Conductor on bus bearing No AP-92-6509 on route leeja to Sindanoor, a check was exerci,sed by the checking officials at stage No.10 and that tire petitioner besides violating the rule issue and start has failed to issue tickets to two passengers, who I 6 were found travelling without ticket from stage Nos.8 to

15. The petitioner despite collecting the requisite fare @ Rs.13/- each from the passengers in question at the boarding point itself did not issue tickets to them. The ticket less passengers have crossed a distance of two fare stages (10 kms) and the petitioner with malafied intention to defraud the revenues of the Corporation did not issue tickets to them in a meager capacity of 31 passengers including two ticket less passengers. (") The checking officials have obtained the statement of the ticket less passengers, which was written by the petitioner himself and was attested as correct. The checking officials have issued charge memo to the petitioner and he also offered his spot explanation. (d) Based on the irregularities enumerated in the charge memo and the explanation offered by the petitioner and that the irregularity being serious in nature, the 1't respondent placed the petitioner under 7 suspension and issued charge sheet on 05.12.2003 framing three charges against the petitioner' (e) The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the ,lharge sheet is found unsatisfactory and a detailed enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer submitt:d a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the l"t responclent, after following the procedure laid down under lhe Regulations, removed the petitioner from service on 17 .O4.2OO4. Aggrieved by the orders of removal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appella te authority and the sarne was dismissed on 3O.09.:ZOO4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed I.D.No.26 0f 2005 before the Labour court and the sarrre was dismissed on 18.09.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

8. l,earned Standing Counsel appearing for the resportd.ents sgbmits that the statement of the ticket less Jrassengers, who were travelling without tickets, 1* ' ./- .r j:! :. .' ;.. rx: :1:-' . .r.' l 8 was written by the petitioner himself and that he admitted the correctness. of Ex.M2 (passenger statement) which was written with his own hand writing. The petitioner has committed serious misconduct amounting to misappropriation and that the charges levelled against the petitioner a-re proved. The action taken against the petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct, which is legal and valid. Therefore, the 1"t respondent rightly imposed the punishment of removaL from service vide proceedings, dated L7 .O4.2O04 and the same was also confirmed by !h. appellate authority as well as the Labour Court. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the sarrre is liable to be dismissed- g. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that the petitioner joined the service of the respondents' corporation on 21.01 .1997, subsequently his services 9 were regularized on O 1.01. 1998. Thereafter, the petitiont:r was removed from service on 17 -O4.2OO4. Aggrieve,d by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2"d respondent, which was dismissed on 30.O9.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner fiIed I.D.No.26 of 2005, which was also dismissed on lB.O9.20O6. After a lapse of three years, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the Award ,lated 18.09.2006 passed by the Labour Court

10. The l't respondent issued charge-sheet against the pr:titioner on 15.12.2OO3 and the petitioner submilted his explanation on 18.12.2OO3 denying the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer submirted his findings on 1 1.03.2OO4 obseniing as follows; : - "Ttrc delinquent in his charge-sheet explanation dated lE.2.2003, wherein he referred for th.e charge No'.2 that thz passengers in question haue boarded at leeia and bcund to trauel upto Sindhanoor along with otlrcr 2 bcttch of passengers. He had issued tickets to all the pessengers in tLrc bus and also uerified the bus pass l0 hold"ers. Tlrc passengers irt question giuen only Rs'20/ - to him instead" of requisite fare of Rs.26/- @ Rs'13/- each. He had demanded the balance of Rs'6/ - from them but they failed to tender the balance amount of Rs.6/ - to him as such he had returned back Rs'20/ - to them and. asked. them to get down from the bus, but the passengers are argued with him, mean while th'e clrcck took place. Further, tre also stated that the TTIs had taken fPTs to implicate him in false case by obtaining his spof statement. He also stated that the passengers statement raas mad.e him to u-tite as per the dictation of the TTIs to suit their case. The delinquent in his enquiry deposition repeated the same-"

11. In the very sarne enquiry report, it is further observed as follows :- "The delinquent in his enquiry deposition deposed that on 08.12.2OO3 the said passengers u)ere arguing in regard. ticket fare as such the stage No.9 had approached and after issuing tickets to other passertgers he had closed t?rc SR upto stage No'9 by imagining that the aboue passengers were also issued. tickets. As such, on approaching stage No'lO he had also closed the SR as usually bg forgotten to issue tickets to th.em by thinking that he might had issued them tickets-u t1 L2. Frr>m the above two observations in the enquiry report, it is clear that the petitioner himself admitted his guilt:.

13. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of thi,s Court in DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, HYDERABAD 7s. MOHD,KHAN AND ANOTHE,RI, wherein nil award was passed against the petitioner therein and the learned Single Judge of this Court while setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court, the relief of reinstatement with 5Oo/o back rvageS was granted. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the APSRTC approached the Division Bench and the said Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal by observing as follows :- "It is tnte that the scope of interference in a writ pelition, with the anaard passed by tLrc Labour Court is uery limited. At the same time, if tlle finding re<:orded bg *Le Enquiry Offtcer, or th.e one arriued at ' zors 1+; ALD t73 (DB) t: ,i! ,:i i: l.l l; i: l. I i: i I l, I ; I I I I ,l I .l i t2 by ttrc Labour coutt is contrary to the record, ttrc High Court cannot igruore it."

14. In the above case, the charge against the petitioner was that he had issued a used ticket of Rs.S/- denomination to a passenger. Except the said charge, there were no other charges against the petitioner during his past service. Moreover, he had received several letters of appreciation from the Department for his honest service. Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner does not have a clean service record, as he had been censured twice and his increments had been deferred eleven times prior to his the present case. In such involvement in circgmstances, the above referred case is not applicable to the case on hand.

15. In the instant case, the petitioner himself admitted his guilt and therefore, the 1"t respondent rightly imposed the punishment of removal from service and the s€une also was confirmed by the l3 appellatr: authority. The Labour Court while dismissing the Award, referred the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in REGIONAL MANAGER, UPSRTC, ETAWHA, AND OTHE,RS Vs. HOTI LAL AND ANOTHER2, wherein the Apex Court held as follows :- "The common thread ntnning through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it u.tas in defiance of logic or moral standards. In uieut oJ'uthat has been stated in the Wednesbury's cest>- (supra) the Court would not go into the conectness of tlrc choice made by the administrator operl to him and the Court should not subst.itute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of jud;.cial reuiew is limited to the deficiency in decision- ma,ling process and not the decision."

16. Ir, the instant case, the respondents have followed the due process of law while conducting the enquiry. Moreover, the petitioner himself admitted his guilt and based cn the enquiry report and the submissions made 'llrzoo: (2)sc27) l4 by the petitioner, the 1"t respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service and the same was also confirmed by the appellate authority. Further, the Labour court a1so, after considering the material on record and after hearing both sides, basing on the above referred judgment of the Honble Apex court, rightly dismissed the I.D. In the instant case, the petitioner joined the service in the year 1997 and his services were regularized in the year 1998 and thereafter, he was suspended in the year 2OO3. Within a short spap of service, the petitioner was censured twice and his increments were deferred 11 times prior to his involvement in the present case'

17. In the above circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve any equitable relief or reinstatement in servlce

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court, upon due consideration of the material on record, is of -.-,, ::::l.ij..;-.if +:$ia l5 the considered opinion that the Labour Court has rightly rendered the impugned Award. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality warranting interference with th,: said Award. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as; to costs. Pt:nding miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed I'TRUE COPY// .MALLIKARJ UNA RAO ISTANT RE GIS SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. V ARASIMHA GOUD, Ad 2. Ohe CC lo SRl. R. ANURAG , (sc FOR TSRT 3. Two CD 'lopies N BM BSR h{ te oPucl UC] c) I \ \ HIGH COLIRT DATED:2911012025 ORDER WP.No.1:i003 of 2009 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @.4e