Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Bhagwan Lat Arya vs Commissioner of police, Delhi and others, in whrch it was

Judgment

1. 2 THE LABOUR COURT (INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-2). 2Nd FIOOT, ChANdrAVihAr Buildings, t\/.J. Road, nyOeraOaO. The Depot fV'lanaqer. A.p.S R.T C.,, Rajendranagar, Bus Depot. Ranga Reddy District, Rajend rahagar, Hyderabad. A.p. \t '/t 1t

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tfre Hlgh'CJu;;;; ;" pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of certiorari carr for the records pertaining to'anJ connected with the Award dt. 17-11-2006 passed in rD No.,19 of 2o-os (ord rD No. 62 of 2003 of LC-r, Hyderabad) by the First Respondent and quash the same by decraring iir. irr"grr, arbitrary, un-constitutio nar and consequenfly set aside the i*p, jieo-i"mo"ral proceedings dt.2S-B-20O1 passed by the 2nd respondent l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(wPM P. NO: 1852 I OF 2008) Petition under section i51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in llu^?Ii9uul fited in support of the peiitio;, ir," nisr, Court may O" pr"*LJ t" 'GRANT LEAVE" to take the assistance of the Unioi Representaiive uiJttrt too if this Hon'ble court permits as the petitioner /workman is not fuily ,.qrri"tuo *itr, the Labour Laws and the Reguraiions of A.p.s.R.T.c. and itr. u"oion, therein wherein were mentioned in the Engrish tungrrg" and the petitioner has studied in Telugu Medium and further pr"yi that thi"s H6n'bre court'to p"rrit ir," "iro Union Represent[ tive to assist the petitioner during the hearing th€) arguments of *ho is w-'ll vr:rsed with the facts and circumstances of the :ase tn" "ra" Counsel for the Fetitioner: SRl. T BALA JAYASRI Counsel for the Flespondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the tLespondent No.2: SRI M RAM MOHAN REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made :he following: ORDER d:, : THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.13OS 4 of 2OlO ORDER: This writ petition is hled by the petitioner seeking to call for the records pertaining to the Award dated 17. 1 1.2O06 in I.D.No. 19 of 2OOS (Otd I.D.No.62 of 2003 of LC_1, Hyderabad), passed by [he learned Chairman, The Industrial Tribunal - II, Hyderabad and quash the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and consequently set aside the rmpugned removal proceedings dated 2S.OS.2OO 1 passed b1, respondent No.2 and further to dtrect respondent No.2 to reinstate him back into service with continuity service with full back wages along with consequential benefits including notional increments by fixing the revised pay scalc from time Lo time .

2. The brief facts of the case are [hat petitioner was appointed as a conductor in respondent No.2 Corporation on 24.11.1993 and his services were regularized on O1.03.19gS. On 13.O7.20OO ar about 17:45 hours the checking ofhcials of Regional Enforcement Squad, Hyderabad Region, have exercised a check at stage No.3/4 i.e., puranapool, while the petitioner was conducting Bus No.Ap gZ 3Sl on route No.gOR tiom CBS to Golconda and detected certain cash and ticket irregularities. I \ 2 The petititr er got down from the bus and left thc bus u ith cash bag. The st 1te-lrent of the passenger and the sen'ice drivi:r rr"ere rccorded a lhc lime of chcck. As the petitioner left thc bus' a charge r,e no .rnd check sheets were sent to the rcsPondent clepot for s;rvjt:e on the petitioner and the petitioner offe'red his explanatior L ba sing on the charge memo On that lh(' De pot Manager. laj endranagar Depot, removed the petitionr':r from scrvice u de proceedings No.02 / 62(93)/ 2000-R']NR' dated

25.08.20t)

3. Against r.he said Order, an appeai was preferred bt forc the Divisional MarLager, A.P.S.R.T.C and he observed that in spite of granting : ea s;onable opportunity, petitioner failed to '3ive his statemclrt Il rLt a1l, petitioner was rea11y lilling unu-ell' -hc TTIs u,ould ha ve ,aken him to the hospital in thc szrrte bus' Moreover. as pcr the statement of TTIs, he left ttre i-rrrnd tray ancl Licke bltcks in the bus and went away with his ci:rsh bag Thereaftc , th,l statement of a lady passenger was i'r1so -ecorded from u'ho m r.he petitioner collected the ticket fare bu' did not issue tic (e1, T'hough he collected Rs 2 5O Ps aga inst the requisit,: farr: of Rs.3.5O Ps., from the lady, tre had not issued the ticker anrl allowed the concessional fare of Rs 1 0O, vvith a frauduler t nrctir.e. The petitioner has to send the casr on the 3 night of 13.O7.2ooo, but he senr the bus cash on l4.o7.2ooo and there is shortage of Rs.25/_ and it amounts to misappropriation. Therefore, rejected the appeal. Against the said Order, petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad and the Industrial Tribunal also confirmed the Order of the Depot Manager and the Divisional Manager 01. the Corporation and dismissed his application, against the said C)rder, petitioner preferred the present Writ petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contenderl thaL the punishment imposed upon the petitioner i.e., removal from service is disproportionate and moreover, his past conduct was also considered while imposing the penalty without any framing of charge. She also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Bhagwan Lat Arya Vs. Commissioner of police, Delhi and others, in whrch it was held that the punishment of remoual from seruice is highly excessiue and disproportionate and, also not psnnirrible to be imposed os per the Seruice Rules, as such theg d.irected the petitioner to be reinstated. in the seruice subject to the condition thot the period duing ulhich the petitioner remained. absent cannot be counted as a period spend on dutg and he sholl not be entitled to any sentice benefits for that period.. \\ 4

5. In t1i s r: rse, while conductor was dischargrng his dutre s in bus, ther e v'as an inspecting team. The conductor b1. se eing thern fled a va5 nittr the cash bag by leaving the banci lriry and Licket blor:k s. (l n thc next day, he returned the bag and also deposited I:ss,:r amount and moreover stated that cn the previous <la y h r: was suffering from urinary track problc m, he informed tt e same lo the TTIs Team orally and u cnt to the hospital, b u1, -rc has not hled any medical certificrrte to substantrtrt r Ir:s vcrsion. It is observed by the DivLsional Manager 1.hrt letitioner has not submitted any objectiorrs and hc has not -esp,rnded to the show-cause notice. Petittonel in his explanation cLated 19.08.2000, stated that he informed that he could not c on 1 r ol the unbearable back pair-r and in lorm ed lhe same to I h: l-'ls and took their oral permissiot-t, br.rt rn the appeal hc statcd that he was suffering from urinary track problem. T re clriver of the bus in his statement stated that petitioner nfcrmed him about his stomach pain, brrt the petitioner 1as not stated regarding the said ftrcr .n his statement . '1'h ough he stated that he rushed to T:lrnaka Hospital zrr d sc t admitted as in patient and after takinq htness certificate I:onr the Hospital on 14 .O7 .2OOO he reportccl to the authority c()nc3rned, the concerned documents were nol liled by him at thc ear'liest point of time or till today. If at all. )re was I 5 suffering from any urinary track infection, he shourd have informed the same to TTIs and they would have taken him to the hospital in the same bus. Therefore, the defence taken by the petitioner was not considered by the Depot Manager regarding the punishment of removal.

6. The Iearned Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's past punishments were also Laken, but as per the Service Record on 13.0T.1995, he was involved in Cash and Ticket irregularities and his annual increments were withhold on 03.O1.199a, 14.O2.1999 and 20.O3.2OOO, and rhus rhe Depot Manager imposed punishment of removar from service. F our charges were framed against the petitioner and his subsequent conduct immediately after the inspection i.e., absconding from the bus is also another charge ancl that itself substantiate another charge framed against him anci he has not flled any medical certihcate to substantiate his version. Petitioner had also preferred review petition against the Order of the appeilate Order, buL it was not considered.

7. Admittedly, the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the petition of the petitroner on 17.71.2006 and he preferred the present Writ Petition in the year 2O1O i.e., atter 4 years. .lhe Depot t & i I \\ -il 6 Manager ck:a r1r' c bserve d that the bus r'l'as running second trip ' If at all, lhr prrtitioner rvas not feeling well, he should have stoppcd at CBS bus stage, but he failed to do so The misconducl- of r hc petrtioner is proved and there are conct.Lrrent hndings of tl c t),:pot Manager, Divisional Manager and also the Industrial ''riltr- nal. Considering the subsequent corrduct immediately aft:r the inspection and also previous condr'lct of the petitione r as pcr his Service Record, this Court findsl that petitioner ur:rs ILt)t clischarging his duties with due diligen':e, as such it cantLol tre said that pur-rishment imposed upon trim is clisproportro rr1t,r 'I'hcre is no illegality or inhrmitf in thc Ordcr of the indu;lri.rl Tribunal and this Court finds no rcason to interfere wit r th,: said Order' 8 In t he res;ult, the present Writ Petition is dismisscrl ' There shall be no )rd,r' as to costs Mis<:e iltrrrt:ous petitions pending, if any, shal I stand //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ber;rtou oFFlcER ! One CC to SFll. T BALA JAYASRI Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to r3P FOR LABOUR ,High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] one CC. t) SRI tV RAM MOHAN REDDY(SC FORTSRTC) IOPUCI Two CD ( )oPies closed. To, I 2 J 4 KKS 'GJP I l i HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 I I {a .t ORDER WP.No.1305i4 of 2010 1r,D :,1A i o'+( i) 0 1 Ar it 2t25 2 ,Q * t) * t rj\iqO -:=::.i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS // 7 /s 7 , i I i I I t