High Court · 2025

1 imr*ru;*fl**t',Htm+r,*mlt-'-*1 Peiition under Article 226 of the Constitut'ron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of records pertaining to the lD No' 18 of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for th€ 2014 dated 2-2-2O17t" *t'"" of the Labour Court'll Hyderabad' and set aside the same in so far as it went against the petitioner in denying the reinstatement uenefits is illegal' arbitrary' contrary to the into service, ufr "on"q*ntiai evidence on record and against the TSRTC Service Regulatrons and consequently direct the *"'ponO"ntt to reinstate the petitioner into service' with all consequential benefits Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' G' SHANKAR counsel for rhe Respona"ri."sni n nNUme (sc FOR TSRTC) iiJ i"r.t ."4" the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KAR HIK ORDER: PE N No .33s90 of2ol8 Labour Seeking to ca-ll for the records pertaining to awarrl passed by ln LD.No. l8 of 1)Oi4 dated O2.O2.2O|Z and to set aside the same, the present. writ petition is Court_II, Hyderabad, . filed.

2. The case of the rppointed as a conductor in the respon::,:;",:::,,"T^:"" yea. 2O(t9 and his seryices were regularized in the year 2012. t_urther, uhile performing his duties on route Bidar to Nizamabad on lZ.O].2OI3, a r:heck was exercised by the checking officia.ls at stage No.33, HES:ZHB, during the course of which, it was alleged that the pctitioncr had committed certain cash and ticket irregularities, that the petitioner.had collected Rs.174/- towards requisite fare of each Rs.g7/- at the troarding point itself from the two passengers bound for Boclhan and issued used tickets and closed the STAR book. Thereafter, the respondents issued a charge memo, framing seven charges agatnst the pr;ti1i61.16p. 1,, response, the petitioner submitted his explanation deny ng the charges, stating that on the same day, he had remitted the br_rs cash 2 PK' J W.P.No.33sgo of 2O18 of Rs.8,969/- against the target of Rs 8'297/-' which clearly proves his hard and honest collection in the ioterest of the respondent Corporation, and that he had always maintarned the best EPK and best attendance in every rnonth' However' without considering his explanation, the respondent authorities issued a suspension order and nominated the Assistant Manager {T)' Nizamabad' as the enquiry off1cer, to conduct an enquiry into the charges leve{ed against the petitioner. Accordingly' an enquiry was conducted and the errquiry offlcer submitted his report' holding the petitioner as guilty of the charges leveled against him' and relylng on the said report' respondent No'4 issued proceedings dated 08'O4'2O13' imposing upon the petitioner a major penatty of removal from servi'ce' which was confirmed in the appeal and revision vide orders dated 09.05'20 t3 and O3 07'2o 13 respectively' Moreover' the mercy petition trled by the petitioner herein was also dismissed on 30.10.2O13 Assailing his removal order' the petitioner frled I'D'No'18 of 2Ol4 before respondent No'5' seeking reinstatement with all consequential benents' but the said t D was dismissed vide award dated O9'01'2Ol7 Hence' the present writ petition' ! i I I I I i i t i \ t I 3 PK, J Vl.P..\o.3359O of 2018

3. Heard Smt. parimala parigi, Iearned counsel, representing Sri G. Shankar, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respond(:nts. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court has grossly erred in not taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner, wherein, he has categor;cally stated that the missed ticket was issued to another passenger who got down before his arriving at the destination and the wrong 1:uncl.r was done unintentionally purely by mistake, but not malo fidelg, ztnd passed the award perversely based on one-sided enquiry findir_rgs of the enquiry oflicer. It was further contended that it is an undi:;puted fact that the petitioner has issued the correct value ,tf tiokets, i.e., Rs.774/- (Rs.87/- each for two passengers), which vras also tallied with the denomination of tickets issued, and there is no cash and ticket irregularity. Hence, the allegation of re_issuance o[ one ticket is incorrect. It was further contended that the Labour Court, bcing an adjudicating authority of factual issues, has the authority to exercise its discretionary power, but it has failed to exercise i:s power conferred upon it under Section l1_A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and failed to consider that the respondents have not pr.oved the allegations leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, l.he irnpugned 4 PK' J w.P.No'j3590 of 2O18 award is illegal, arbitr ar1, mala flde and against the Service Regulations of the respondent Corporation' Therefore' it was prayed to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition' 5. Per corrtra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a cofltract conductor on 10.01.2010, and his services were subsequently regularized w'e'f'' Ol.O7.2Ol2' However' the petitioner was involved in serious cash and dcket irregularities while performing his duties in bus bearing No'AP ll Z 4[3,on route' Bidar to Nizamabad A check was conducted by the checking offrcials at Stage No'33' and during the course of the check, the TTIs of HES:ZHB found that the petitioner collected fare from two Passengers and issued used tickets to them with aII intention to misappropriate the amount received as [are' and caused loss to the respondent Corporation Basing on the TTIs report' a charge memo dated 21' 1O 2013 was issued to the petitioner' and he was placed under suspension- [n response to the charge memo' the petitioner submitted his explanation on 08'02'2O l3 However' as the disciplinary authority was dissatisfied with the said explanation' a detailed enquiry was ordered, and the enquiry officer, after following the due procedure, conducted the enquiry and submitted his report' holding the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved Further' : I . ! I I t t ! I -__--- i I i I F I i I i , i 5 PK, J W.P.No.33S9O of 20t8 the petitioner was given ample opportunigr to defend hinrself, but the petitioner himself failed to avail the same. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 22.Ct3.2O13, and based on the evidence available on record and the disciplinary authority has issued a show_cause notice for removal dated 06.04-2013, to the petitioner, but the pefitioner ,Jid not put forward an1. lresh va.lid points. Therefore, taking ir to considerat.on thc overal[ circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authoriry has passed the order of removal dated Og.04.2013, ancl enquiry report, the the same was d by the appellate authority on 09.OS.2013 and the reviewing on 03.o7.2013. Further, t]:e mercy pe lition was a.lso by the reviewing authority on 20.10.2013 It was lurther confirme authorit] rcJ cc-ted Lab,our Court submitted thar the petitioner raised an I.D. before th,: yide I.D.No_ Ia of 2014, arrd the Labour Court, afr3r ht:aring the p.rrt rcs ;lnd on perusal of the endre material on record conl.irmed the orclcr of removal passed by respondent No.4 and dismisserl thc L D. vidc rmpugned award dated 02.O2.2OIZ, holding thar rhe punishmenr imposed againsr the petitioner was justilied and that he is nc,t entitled lirr anr relief. It was also held that the domestic enquirJ is yalid and thus, rhe Labour Court has rightly dismissed the l.D. hle,1 by the petitioner. As such, there is no illegality or perversitl. in thc \ 6 PK' J w P.No.s3s9O of 2018 impugned award dated 02 'O2'2O17 ' Therefore' it was dismiss the present writ petition' prayed to This Court has taken note of the rival submission made by the 6 learned cou{lsel for the respective partles 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a Conductor on contract basis on 18'01'2010, and his services wcre later regularized on Ol.O7.2Ol2. White performing his duties on in bus bearing No AP ll Z 4}3,on route, Bidar-Nizamabad' it was found that the pctitiotler wasinvolvedincashandticketirregularitics,thus.achargememo dated 31.O1.2O13 was issued framing the following charges: "t"r:t 'i-t" close the STAR then ffi;d; ilt;; ;Ti;;;,t";"n;.iat-tta 'r

1. ryou have failed to observe the rule of issue tickets to the passengcrs U""' while vou were performing 07.25 17 lort2ot3' which constitutcs^Iniscondtrct interms epsntc' Emplolccs {co.du( tl lrcs 1e63 2. While the TIs checked your bus theY have founcl that t\r'o passengers vour Llus at tsidar zrnd bound team were travelling *hrl *;l;;;i"d $hom you have collected Rs' for Bodhan ex'stages sz tl oi-i" Rs 40/- 174l- towards requisite f";";; t'ii+-ii'-qoq '+o5 abd 467 E 4 total worth of deno. Ticket Nos.45o / Rs. 160/- and Rs'7/-aeno TiiIJi li"".z rOlo:838o ancl 381 E 2 total worth Rs.14/-, while you *"t" ottfot't'ng O7'25 hrs Htdar dutv on rlo' +s"o7z rs rGi] alrcad" tssued to lT loll2ol3 among those ;; ;t[t Dassenqers who were t'"*il-gitrr; Niz'amalrad Hitlal tat stag. No'20 :f;L;.f.;".ti"'tr'""' tii""'t'n ticker No rs0';rRrb'q or Rs40/ deno- As TPT, which to""tt"*" miscontluct tnterms clf Reg No 28 i-i6i git"f iliir*uf of APSRTc Emplovees {conduct) Reg 1e63. 3.YouhaveissuedRs.4ol.deno.TicketsNos.45ol7t8463,464'465and " you strouU issue ticket No 450/718466 as serial but You i;; i""rJ +SOTzfa+67 ticket, which constitutes rniscondltct rnterms of ii"g. N..28(*)tdfix)(a){x) of APSR'|C F)m plo} ees (Conduct) Rcg 1 963' Rs'87/ ai thr- -bocrdrng -*i, l I ! 7 PK, J w.P.No.33S9O of 201B 5 6 _ misconducl -ir";;i ""o .to passengers and you-have t" p"";:t 4 You have issued Rs.4Ol_ deno. Ticket Nos.4SO/718463 , 464,465 and 467 E-4 g;,;;,".'a,s 37 to 07 but you have punched as os'to 06 ,t;;:?;ffi:)ll # punch, which constitures *.on* -.a ",, ReB. 28(vi)(a) (ix)(a) (x)(xviit of ApsRrc, e-pi"y""-"lL"oi"",T ii'"u. rnu r. You have failed to shown issue_s of Rs.30/- deno. at Bidar statje. And you have rampered lasr disir No.z, as 4'.aR:.;o/ ?f..",",,u"" ., staBe No.2o to 37. which con^stituGl ffi;;;1 ff;i",r," ur n"g. No 2s(vil(a) (ix) (a) (x) (.**) "rApsRra,-;-;;;;;:?il.,.i.,ilji"* ,ru.. For Rs.87/- ricket fare vou have issued Rs.4O/_ E_2 afld Rs.7/-E_l [rorally Rs.87l ] but whin you have t" i""r; ;;;b;";tit,"ulr..," yo, nave to rssue from hisher denorainarion ; ;;";;;;"!..r"itrbt" Rs.50/. deno. aur you faled t9 g..p,.;rulfJ.,",uil,jl"lji".,,.,o,., (ix) (a) (x)' (xvii)-';f*;il;:iL: "J- p,roy"." il::il.,,'["x'ir2u8jvi)(a) You have closed all the denr Nyalkal trirhour vaia ticket ,-L.P" T1* upto stag'r No it3 r.e r-rj." eii.,'a,,;'i" "iiltll;dfi *1#; JHril.,:: #JJ:lTl:t ,oj [fifl., i[.::YB5j:?"'' ze[vi)1a)'1i:.11af - oi-fiffift:' or"." 7 "-o

8. In response, the petitioner submitted his explar.ation on o8.O2.2o 13, following which, a detailed enquiry was ordr:red duly appointing the cnquiry officer, who submitted his enquiry report da|cd 22.O3.20 13, holding the charges leveled against the peritioncr as proved Thereafter, the said report was commurricated to the petitioncr, duly calling for his objections, if any, on the lindings of rhe encluiry officer, and a show-cause notice for removal dated 06.04.2013, was also issued. On the same day, the [,etiticner had also submirted his explanation ald after considering the explanation and basing on tlle Enquiry Report, he was removed from service on 08.04.2013, u,hich was conhrmed in appeal, review anc mercy I i i i j i 1 t ! I ! I 8 PK, J w.P.No.33590 of 2018 petitions vide orders dated 09'05'2013' 03'07'2O13 and 30'10'2013 respectively. Here it is also relevant to note that by the date of his removal, the petitioner had completed not rnore than one year of regular service, and was indulged in serious cash and ticket irregularities. g. Challenging his removal order' the petitioner filed t'D No- 18 of 2o14 before the l.abour Court, which was dismissed vide award dated O2.O2.2O17 , with the following observations: r* ni'+ni- ^bv lqc' lo , 's-i^]-ao"'*tnt hled "The contention of the respondent !!1t- ilt petitioner has issued Rs'40/-be"ti; At-ick;;.N o'45o/7 ].f.463' 464' 465' 467 travelling which were tr'""av i5"'iJ IJ-*tt p""""ttg"t" thl -*"- fromNizamabadt"B"id;il;;"ssenger-s'.statementshowsthat thevboardedtl'"b;';;;i;iogoto-Bod'nandtheconductor - a"i' ti"ti"t" t""'l''g No 4so/718463' il'J :;"; two Rs z/-' tickets bearing ;J"l""";J 464 '465,467 '"d the respondent No.7l0163638o, Oer]it'e showsthatth"p";;;;";;;issuedRs-4o/''denotickets 14 to 24 white No.45ol718463, 464:;;; ;i doing trip f'orrr lf i--tuJ'to Bidar and thi checking officials has rhe bus ar seized the ti"t"t" r'o*--iri" pu"""t'gtt" *n? li: Yl:n"o Bidar for wt'icn cfeariy-st'oiws thal the petitioner has reissued the tickets which *"."'Jt."ay is"ued. to the passengers who were that the travelling rto- xr.aff"tt ;; ;id- s z/i titxtt" of 710/638380 and 381 petitioner t't" i"*"fffi. ilsued correct tickels of Rs'7/- which the pttoo'i"t denomination at- ;"id;;; ni"-J"a' lt cleartv' shows that th^e of tickets to four passengers t'e' rretitioner t'a" l"sueJ f":;;l:'#0"'i"]ii-il;;:-ile Rs4o'/ tickets are arreadY reissued tickets ,rj j"'ij-,i"*",s are proper.tickcts. unless the uied tickets the quesrion of Detitioner t'"" * i"i"l'i#;;JtI* Il"',1'i#".",oJr"""i"-or-Gtto does not fti:tj 11 th€ conductor t* t'"" *t"goti""Uy stated thaa-he sold tickets upto *Jre sotd at^Stage No 37 which is ""p"i"L,"-""t stage No'22' tn" that for the 3rd charge he mistake at th" *;- "t"ttd stated that tt'" p""*"g"i *ho boarded the.bus who took ticket bearing No.45o/7ri+i6 t'"" g"t down from.the bus in the middle made by the petitioner and the of the journey Th" ;;;;1 "fr"*U'"i"i" tit; h" "otnlination ^be 'noted tt is- to' "L"- i i i ! l i i I --.....- I 1 ! I !J E I t: 9 PK, J W.P.No.33S9O of 2O1B with regard to other cl passenBer,s statement are corrogolating with the sTAR document that the petitioner has reis! r. ". ;; ;;'r.;;: ;r 60,;?".:?1Xi:91 _%"fl *atio r r tick(:ts or l: t: ", " I ; ."*- "i.t;;; i;#E"i#.#J,:"#.;:iff*".1 ffj passcnger got down from the bus. For thc charRe No.4. he has rlot given arly expla-nadon ttrat =*,, the last .risit as '4' or courd not tampered the subsequent I;"1:", [#:#'El]g*":T:"r :r," sn*--o*,1-liitll"", Rs 4ol. denomin;;;; b,;; ;:':^:Tf'.'9 entries. .;nJ1:" ,1""o, In view of the above discussion-s, it is clearly evident thal the petrtroner has sold the used ti of Rs'40/- deno' (cket bearing No.4so/ 7 I 8463';il;;";;.""-{"t .sotd in the up trip tJ Nizamatad to"aii;. clearly shows ttlr"i.,l"J,rll"'"o combination of tickets wlrich "r *""."..,i i.!::,u"ffi:hiil il:f [T #.j;.; n.o poss i r,i r r v ol lresh tickets. It clearlv shou , o .",. ",. ih.", i. *;; T# il?Jf il:*#; #::n'_E: j: t?, *j respondcnt is desrrable and th *ru urere rs no need b interfen' -iti, tt" ordir of the ."";;;;;;;. ln rhe result, rhe petition is dismissed., l

10. Frorn the above, it is quite evident that the Labour Court has passed the impugnecl award, after duly taking into consideration the entire m.rterial and evidence record, a,d in view of tht: fact that the charges levt:led against the petitioner were proved in the disrciplinary enquiry, the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the I.D. vi<le award datcd 02.o2.2o t7, confirming the order of remova.l date(I og.rl4.20l3. As such, this Court finds no infirmities in the imptrgnec award, warranting in tc r[crc nce. 10 PK' J W.?.1'1o.3359O ol2O18 I l. For the foregoing discussion' this Court hnds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed'

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous applications' if any' pending in this writ petition' shall stand closed No costs' //TRUE COPY// l\ sD/- H GOWRI SHANKAR ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFfICER G SHANKAR, Advocate {oPUCI R. ANURAG (SC FORTSRrc) t@ To, 1 3 One CC to SRI One CC to SRl. Two CD CoPies BM GJP B)- I : I HIGH COURT DATED:09t06tZO2S ORDER WP.No.33590 of 2018 I E, ..\ i\ ., \ 2 0 2WtP s ,4 .4'., /'o- /!i..i) ',)'* ,_).- \\ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS ?A 1 /1 7\