Heard Sri v. Narasimha Goud

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned award dated 22.03.20'16 in l.D. No. 17 of 2012, published on 1710812016 on the file of the Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad in so far as deferring (2) increments with cumulative effect and not giving attendant benefits and back wages as arbitrary in violation of Art. 1 4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent to restore the deferred increment along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N. CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.21415 of 2O2O ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226. of Lhe Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: "...to issue an appropriate writ or ord.er, direclion, patltcul(.rlg one in the nature of wRlT OF _CERTIORARI, q"ii- ,i[l^prgn.a ctwqrd dated 22.03.2016 in I.D. No. tZ i1 bOiZ, 1.7.08 2016 on the fite fo ttre r.abour coun,nl,'Hgde;;Lda'in" 1o, ," defernng (2) increments with cumutatiue' .i;;';;; grring attendant benefits and baclawages as arbitrory n uiolation;I Art. 14, t6 & 2t of the constirutio" i1 nii" ";i;r;;,;;;";;ri;Zirect ne "taith respondents to restore the defened i""r.^"ii- olo,ig conse quent s b enefit s.. - ! -irOiirn"a "nit "o 2 The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as follows:

2.7. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in the respondent Corporation on O4.12.19g6,. and his services were regularized w.e.f., O1.0g. l9gg. While working as such, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 1 1.0S.2OO7, a_lteging misconduct against him. The petitioner submitted his explalation to the said charge sheet, but having been dissatisfied with the same, the respondent Corporation conducted an enquiry against him. Subsequently, the enquiry officer submitted his report on O3.og.2OO7, holding the charges against the petitioner as proved. Thereafter, the !-rIIr \ -.--.1 2 PK, J w.P.No.21415 of 2O2O authorities issued yet another charge sheet dated I4.09.2OO7, without frnalizing the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f., 06.1O.2007. . 2.2. Thereafter, another enquiry was conducted in respect of the second charge sheet dated l4.Og.2OO7, and the enquiry offrcer submitted his enquiry report on. 10. 11.2009, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter d,ated. 24.ll.2OOg. The petitioner was then issued with a show-cause notice of removal from seryice vide proceedings dated 02. 12.2oo9, for which, he submitted his expla_nation on 16.12.2009. Consequently, the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 2t.l2.2}Og. Assailing the same, he preferred an appeal before the Depu ty Chief Trafhc Ma,ager, Nalgonda, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2011. t.-

2.3- Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Labor court-Ill, Hyderabad, and rrred I.D.No. 17 of 2or2. The Labour court allowed the said I.D. vide award dated 22.03.2016, setting aside the removal order dated 2l.l2.2OOg, by directing the respondent to reinstate him into service, duly treating the period of suspension as on_ duty for all purposes, without any backwages and attendant beneflts. The Labour court also modified the punishment to that of reduction of I 3 PK, J W.P.No.214l S of 2O2O two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the modified punishment and denial of backwqges and attendant benefits. the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3 Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner arrd Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court erred in upholding ttre viUaity of the domestic enquiry conducted in respect of the charge sheet dated l4.Og.2OOZ, as no witnesses were examined during the enquiry. As such, the Labour court ought to have held not only charge No.4 but all the charges against the petitioner as not proved. It was further submitted that the Labour Court, having held that the petitioner was entitled fo: continuity of service, erred in modifying the punishment to that of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect and also in denying the backwages and attendant benefits. It was further contended that the Labour Court, having held that the petitioner should be treated on par with one Mr. Omkaram, Driver, who was suspended atong ,arith the petitioner on the same charges, whereaJter, his suspension was revoked and he was continued in service, ought to have directed the respondent to pay the salar5r and 4 PK, J W.P.No.21415 of 2O2O other benents to the petitioner from the date Mr. Omkaram was continued in service. However, the Labour Court committed an error in treating the petitioner differently from Mr. Omkaram, which is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It was further contended that due to denial of attendant benefits, the petitioner is unable to earn increments for the removal period. Therefofe, learned counsel lbr the petitioner prayed this court to set aside the impugned award dated 22.03.2076 passed by the Labour court in I.D.No.l7 of 2ot2, to the extent of modification of punishment to that of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect and also the denial of backwages and attendant benehts.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation contended that the petitioner has a history of repeated misconduct, having been censured twice, got his annual increments deferred twice, and was also removed from service twice. It was submitted that on 14.O4.2OO7 , while the petitioner was on duty operating the bus bearing No.Ap-71_Z_43g2 on route Mumbai-Suryapet, the Prohibition and Excise offrcials, conducted a routine check at serlingampally and found that the petitioner and the second driver, Mr. Omkaram, were in possession of IMFL (Indian_made Foreign Liquor) whiskey bottles, which were illegally being transported from Mumbai. I I 5 PK, J W.P.No.21415 of 2O2O The petitioner was not only engaged in illegal transportation of alcohol, but he deliberately concealed the check conducted by the Special Task Force Police, and gave lalse statements during the domestic enquiry. The petitioner's deliberate misrepresentation and non-disclosure of a significant incident constituted misconduct. Therefore, he was issued with the charge sheets dated I i.OS.ZOOZ alrd t4.og.2o}7. It was further contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry. However, he failed to participate effectively arrd sought repeated adjournments. Therefore, the enquiry ofhcer, after following th6 due process of law and considering the available evidence, submitted the enquiry report, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Therefore, based on the frndings of the enquiry oflicer and the gravity of misconduct, it was decided to impose the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner, and thus, a show- cause notice was issued to the petit_,oner ot 02.12.2009, to which, he submitted his explanation on 16.1.2.2009. However, having been dissatisfied with the same, he was rernoved from service vide order dated

21.12.2009. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 03.05.2O11. Consequently, he hled I.D.No.17 of 2Ol2 before the Labour Court, and during the proceedings before the Labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced by either parties. However, 6 PK, J w.P.No.21415 of 2o2O 1 .t on behalf of the Corporation, documenhry evidence (Ex.M-l to M-35) was submitted. As such, Lhe Labour Court, duly considering the facts oi the case arld after a thorough examination of material on record, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct. However, the punishment of removal from service was modified to that of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect, besides denying backwages and attendant benefits, which is just and reasonable for the proven misconduct. Therefore, there is no illegaJity in the award of the Labour Court dated 22.03.2016. It was further ,submitted that in compliance of the said award, the respondent .reinstated the petitioner into service and his increments were deferred accordingly. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival contentions and submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties

7. A perusal of the impugned award dated 22.03.2O16 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.17 of 2O12, discloses that the Labour Court categorically observed that the respondents failed to substantiate the charges leveled against the petitioner, except charge No.4. This charge pertained to the petitioner's concealment of a check that was conducted by the Special Task Police Force, and though it was held proved by the respondent Corporation, the Labour Court has rightly held that the / 7 PK, J W.P.No.21415 of 2020 imposition of a major punishment of removal from service was disproportionate and uncalled for. It is also evident from the impugned award that the Labour Court duly acknowledged the disparity in treating i the petitioner and the second driver, Mr. G. Omkaram, and recorded a clear finding LhaL, "...the punishment of remoual from seruice is not proportionote one ond the respondent ought to haue imposed lesser punishment than the punishment imposed on G. Omkaram."

8. In this context, it is.Televant to note that the second driver, Mr. G. Omkaram was initiatly suspended, but was later reinstated into service, wiLh the penalty of reduction of his increments imposed upon him. Assuming that the incrcments ol Mr. G. Omkararam were deferred with a cumulative effect, in the light of the specihc observation of the Labour Court that the respondent ought to have imposed a lesser punishment on the petitioner than the one imposed on Mr. G. Omkaram, this Court is of considered view that the Labour Court ought to have imposed a lesser punishment on the petitioner.

9. In view ol thc above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the punishment imposed on the petitioner to Lhat of reduction of two increments without cumulative effect. However, the remaining portion of the award daLed. 22.O3.2O 16 passed by the Labour Court in i.D.No.17 ot 2OI2 shall stand conhrmed. \l- \. * -"! I 8 PK, J W. P.No.21415 of 2O2O

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petitlon is disposed of with the above modihcation. Misccllaneous applications, if any, pending in this rryri t petition, shall stand closed. No costs SD/.S.MALLI KARJUNA RAO ISTAN T REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2 3 4 The Deoot Manger, APQRIS: (Now TSRTC)' Suryapet Bus Depot' Nalgonda A:I3tTf:i'*tmmsjfi$,?,fl'.?#8"""4'?to*r-Btt'u"r Two CD CoPies B M/BSK HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 I ,y'-'. ttEST,' ' /' !-\u ir-,: Oi ORDER WP.No.21415 of 2020 (', c) 1$ lul ?06 , * * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS , //, /) /.{ 2