A.Venkata Swamy v. The Depot [Vlanager

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO counser ror the Respondents No,1to3 , i$ tfs+lRil;s,fEii, Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THEHON'BLETHE CHIEF'JUSIICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.887 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Hear<l Slri P.Venkateshwar Rao, learned cour-rsel for the appellant, Siri N.Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel lor TSRTC appcaring lor respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ancl pcruscd the record

2. The p,1g,;6n1 writ appeal is filed by the unsuc:cessf ul u.rit petitioner agzrinst the order dated Og.04.2025 parssed in W.P.No.140 18 of 2Ol7 by the learned Singlc Judge, n.hereby the learned Singt6 Judge dismissed the plca ol rhe u.rit pctitioner/appellant challenging the Award dated 22.12.2O15 passcd by tlic Labour Court in I.D.No.3g of 20l4 and confirmecl the removal of the petitioner from service.

3. The facttral matrix leading to the Iiling of the present wril petition is tlrat rhe writ petitioner/ appellant was appointed as a contract cortductor in the erstuthlle ApSRTC in thr: year 2OO7 and his scn,icr:s were regularized in the year 2O1O. The u.rii petitioner rvers proceeded against in a domestic enquiry in connection lr il.'r the cash and ticket irregularities l)\. zr charge 2 tickets. The Petittoner Sheetdated23.|2.2ol3ontheChargethatthepetitionerhas collected Rs.1,O25/- from the passengers withoul issuing submitted explanation to the charge The Corporalion allt r holding the sheet on 30.12.20 13. departmental enquiry, by enquiry reporl' dated 11 06'2014' held that the charges against thc petitioner were proved The petitioner hled his objections/comments to the enquiry report on 21.06.2014 and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.06-2014 to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on O1.O7.2014 A Ilnal order s'as passed' whereby the petitioner was removed lrom service on 03 07 2014' The petitioner filed a departmental appeal on 20 07 '2014 4. and the same was rejected' Subsequently the petitioner also hled a review petition against the rejection of the appeal and the petition was also rejected The pctitioner furthcr appeal which also \ 'as rejected preferred a revlew revlew t6.1o.2014.

5. The petitioner/ appellant raised an Industrial Dispute I.D.No.38 of 2014 before the Labour Court' wherein the Labour Court uid.e Award dated 22'12'2015 hcld that the dismissal of the petitioner was justihed as thc domestic enquiry was validly conducted and the petitioner himself filed a memo under -) Section 11-r\ of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ,the Act,) accepting the enquiry and that he could not at a latcr datc claim that thc domr:stic enquiry was defective. The Labour Court further held that the charges against the peti[ioner u,ere proved. The past record of the petitioner including the punishments sulfered by him on several occasions including censure on several occasions, deferment of annual increment once and termination lrom service on one previous occasion clearlv eslablished lhat the petitioner was a repeated olfer.rder. The Labour Court further held that not issuing LickeLs aftcr collccting money is not a minor cash and ticket irrcgularih. but a serlous mat tcr of breach oI trust. Thus, the Labour Courr upheld thc order of dismissal from service holding that the punishmcnt wa s not disproportionate to the gravrtv of the offence 6 Thc pet tic,ner aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in LD.No.38 of 2OI4 filecl W.p.No.14018 of 2Ot7 u hich dismissed by thr: learned Single Judge of this Court upholding the order of thc Labour Cour[ \VAS

7. Learned c()unsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant u'as c,perating a one_man service, whcre he r.r,as performing thc drral dutics as a driver as well as a cond uctor It 4 is furthcr urged on behalf of the appellant that the ticket issutng statement of the Passengers machine malfunctioned; that the was recorded behind the back of the aPPellant and his signatureswereobtainedonblankpapers;thzrttheappellant issuedtheticketswhichthepassengersmayhavemisplaced and that there was no intention on the part of thc appellant to defraud the CorPoratron'

8.ItiscontendedonbehalfoftheCorporarionthatthe passengers unanimously stated that they had paid the fare but the tickets were not issued to them; that thc appellant upon seeing the checking ofhcials issued a ticket of Rs 656/ u'hich is aclearadmissionofguiltandthattheappeltanthadapclorpast report with multipie punishments including censure' de lerment of increment and a previous termination from scrvice' Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that g. the order of the learned Single Judge suffered from fundamental misconception that the appellant u'as a conductor and not zr driver and that incorrect perspective of the learned Single 'Judge resulted in the lack of proper appreciation of the lacts and circumstances.ThelearnedSingleJudgefurtherfzriledto considertheundueburdenontheappcllantasboththedriver andconductorofthebuscoupledwithlackoftrainingofthe l appellant to perform the duties of a conductor. Learned counsel fr-rrther contended that at any rate, the removal lrom service u.as ,.hockingly disproportionate punishment for a minor cash and tickct irregularity and thar the failure to obtain approval frorn the Labour Court under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act vitiaterl thc proceedings. It is further contended that there were sevcral procedural irregularities in the conduct of the departmental cnquiry and there is violation of principles of natural jusrir:e. The learned Single Judge failed :o appreciare t hat the nlanzlgemcnt failed to prove the charges against the appellant a nc also the report of the enquiry officer rvas cryptic. 1O. Havir-rg consideration rcgard to the submissions made and upon of lhe entire material on record. we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judgc suffcred from no illegality or perversitSr being propcrly reasoned juclgment based upon the consideration of the entirc material on record including the claims and contentions of both sides. It is further lound that the penalry awarded to the appellant lvas justi{ied in r}rc facts and circumstances of the present casc. Thus, u,e fl'rd that no reason to interfere with the rvell-reasoned order of thr: lt-'zrrned Single Judge and there is no merit in rhe prescnt appeal. Therefore, Lhc appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6 I 1. Accordingly, thc Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as ro - Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// D/-A. PRATHI NT RE R AS S TION OFFICER To,

1. The Depot lVlanager, IVlanthany Depot, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

2. The Regional [\/anager, t\/anthany Depot' Telangana State Road Transport CorPoration rep bi its Vice Chairman and lt/anaging ljlrector j Telanoana State Road fransport Corporqlion'.Bus Bhavan' t\'4usheerabad' - a The Presidinq Officer, lndustrial Tribunal, cum labour Court cum Vl Addl - oitjri"i"rnO S'eisions Court, Godhavari Khani' Karimnagar' 5. One CC to SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC to SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR' (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE 2) IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 8 Two CD CoPies. BSK N/IUT HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 JUDGMENT WA.No.887 of 2025 ,SSI,i-::\- i\ o 1-) 2s 8[I 2925 \i t, "{ \ ^" ..:- ../ "/ ,:/ ,/ DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS J v