High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to Award in lD No. 16/2016 dated 30.0'l .2019 on the file of the Addl. lndustrial Tribunal - cum - Addl. Labour Court, at Hyderabad which was published in Telangana Gazette vide G.O.Rt No.B4 dated 01 .03.2019 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Award in lD No. 1612016 dated 30.01.2019 on the file of the Addl. lndustrial Tribunal cum - Addl. Labour Court, at Hyderabad, pending disposal of above W.P. No. of 2019. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. VASUDEVA REDDY(SC FOR RTC) Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M' VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD The Court made the following: ORDER a HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT PETITI ONNo.211o8 oF 2019 ORDER: State-owned Road Transport Corporation assails Award dated 30.01.2O19 in I'D No 76 of 2016 on the file of the Labour Court' Additional Industrial'l'ribunai-cum-Additional Hyderabad. 2 It is the case of the Corporation that respondent was engaged asa Contract Conductor on daily wages on 13.05.2009 and his services were regularized with effect from Ol.l2.2f ll. During his service' he was censured once for misconduct and subsequently' was removed from service with effect from 10.03.2015, on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities. Aggrieved thereby' respondent preferred Appeal' Review, and Mercy Petition' which were rejected on 03'O8 2015'

19.10.2015and'3L.l2.2ol5respectively.Thereafter,heraised the subject I.D., wherein Labour Court by Award impugned held that punishment of removal was excessive' thus modified the same directing the Corporation to reinstate respondent into service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits' including seniority for promotion purposes' but without back .. .ar. ..l'.;€:t :eirttrrei ._., { 2 \ rages. The Labour Court also directed deferment of one increment u,itl'r cumulative effect

3. '[his Court by order dated 25.O9.2O19 admir.ted Writ Petition and granted interim suspension of thc Arvard impugned to the extent of continuity of se n'ice ar d other attendant benehts, subject to the respondent - rvorkman reinstatemernt into service within one month from that d,av.

1. Learned Standing Counsel for Corporation Sri N. Vas ur-leva Reddy submits that Labour Court erred in directing reinsLatement with continuity of service despite holding the ciomestic enquiry valid and the charges proved and thus, commit[ed a serious irregularity by interfering rvith the punishrlent- of removal. It is submitted that Labour Court ought to have seen lhe dishonest intention of the respondent to misapproprrate the amount and the consequent ioss of confidence b.r the Corporation. According to learned Standing Counsel, in cases of misappropriation, Courts should not show sympathv or i3enerosity, as held by the Hon'b1e Apcx Court.

5. No counter-affidavit was filed. Sri M Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, contends that punishment of removal was disproportion,ltc and that Dabour ilourt had rightly modihed the punishmerrt. it is a 3 submitted that respondent had already suffered due to the prolonged litigation and that the modified punishment strikes a balance between discipline and justice' There is no dispute' respondent - workman was 6. removed from service on the charge of cash and ticket irregularities; appeal, review and mercy petition preferred by himwererejected.Asiswell-settled,thepowerofjudicialreview is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process; the Court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision lt is not open to the High Court to re- appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the frndings recorded by the inquiry officer as a Court of appeal and reach its own conclusions At the same time, it cannot be said that the same ls completely impermissible under Article s 226 and 227 of the Constitution whenthereisalevelofinfirmitygreaterthanordinaryina tribunal's order which is facing judicial scrutiny before the High Court In this case, it is to be seen that dissatisfied with the exPlanation submitted by respondent, the Assistant Manager (Enquiries), Secunderabad Division was appointed as trnquiry Ofhcer to conduct enqulry' during which, statements of 1 I I 4 TTI officials, including Sri M.V.S.V.P Rao, were recorded in the presence of respondent. Despite being given the opportunity, he has not chcsen to cross-examine the witnesses. Pro,:eedings were explained to him in Teiugu for which he expressed satisfaction u.ith the enquiry process. The Enquir5 Officer submittecl his report dated 27.01.2015, holding that charges against rcspr)ndent were proved duly supplying a copy of the said report on O5.02.2015 and respondent submitted comments and objectiorrs on 12.O2.2O15. The Disciplinary Authority, not I-rnding any fresh points in respondent's objections and considerirrg the gravity of the misconduct, issued a show cause notice of termination on 27.O2.2O15. The Respondent's explanation clated 07 .O3.20 1 5 was found unsatisfactory and he u'as removed from service. This Court could not find anr. flaw in the decisiorr-making process of the deparLmental authorities as respondent c,ruld not show any discrepancy in this regard.

8. The Labour Court, uide order dated 03 .C4 .2017 , held that dornestic enquiry was valid. While holding so, by the Award imprLgned, it came to the conclusion that punishment of removal was excessive ald modified the same, as stated supra. At this juncture, it is to be reminded that respondent was a conductor and held the position of trust and if an incumbent I I 5 like him starts misappropriating money by not issuing / recycling a ticket ald pocketing the money thereby causing loss to the Corporation, then it is a serious misconduct and on that point, normally, the Courts do not substitute the punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate' In view of the settled legal position, and also for the reasons stated supra' this Court findsforceinthecontentioncanvassedbythelearnedStanding Counsel for the Corporation However' taking into account and consideration the track record of respondent and in the absence of any material to prove that he underwent severe punishment forsimilaroffenceandnosuchfindingwasrecordedinthe order of removal, appeal, review and mercy petition' as rightly observed by the Labour Court, and since this Court rvhile issuing rule nisi, directed suspension of the Award to the extent of granting continuity of service and other attendant benefits' deems it appropriate to modify the Award to that extent' The Writ Petition is therefore' allowed in part' g. Respondent is not entitled to continuity of service and other attendant benefits only' Rest of the Award holds good No costs. 6 10 Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if n \ any sha11 sr:and closed' w,,",..rgi;nfi #r".?i5J,i['Il"""i:i3]":i"'il;::ff v'nrerwentv SD/.N. SRIHARI T REGISTRAR ASSlsr^N ,TRUE COPY// $tc ION OFFICER The Depot lv{anager' TSRTC' Kukatpally Bus Depot' Kukatpally' Hyderabad' Ed:€3llsi,)Y,i,v,'R',?,::t'Jl::ft Two CD CoPies ilJf lE5'Y3 To, 1 2 3 4 TJ GJP s , I HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 I I i i i : i I I I I i I ORDER WP.No.21108 of 2019 ,;\ ,.\ ',$ ( v z C, .}, {' -x \ -. i.)r Sii/tiC -'-::---..-, .r9l) PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,<