The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, or order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling the records related to 1.D.No.141/2000 dt.25-9-2001 on the file of 2nd respondent herein and quash the same with consequential direction to the 1st respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service with full backwages. l.A. NO: 1OF 2014(WPMP. N O: 21500 OF 20141 Petition under section 151 crc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to set a side the order in WP NO:6104 ot 2OO2' dated; 3-2-2014 in dismissing the writ petition for default and restore the same and dispose the case on merits Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR N (sc FoR TSRTC ZONE 2) The Court made the following: ORDER T r THE HOIfTILE SRI WSTICE PULLA KARTH.IK WRTT PETITION No.6 lO4 of2OO2 ORDER: ThisWritPe|itionisfrledunderArticle226oftheConstitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "...to issue a Writ or order or directions more in the nature of t rit of Certiorar. calling the records related to I.D.No'141/2000 dt.25-09-2o(,1 on the hle of 2 respondent herein and quash the sa.me witll consequential direction to the 1st respondent to reinstate ti.e petitioner with continuity of service trith full backwages end pass such other order or orders ..."

2. The brief lacts of the case are that while the petitioner was conducting the Bus bearing No.A.P. 9Z-8645 on route Biwandi-Sircilla on 28.10. 1996, the checking Oflicials checked the Bus at stage No.29/7 and issued a charge memo dated 2B.lO.l99() with three (3) charges; that the Officials obtained the petitioner's signature on charge memo ald forced him to sign on passengers staternent. Basing on the said alft:gations, respondent No. I issued charge sheet dated

31.10.1996 wiur ttrree (3) charges and placed him under suspension pending departmental enquiry; that respondent No_ I ,rppointed an Enqurry OIIicer to conduct the enquiry into the alleged charges; that the Enquiry Oflicer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved a-I1d o5.04.7997 renrordng the pefitioner resPonden t No. I issUed procee,Jings from service. Ih(: same was \ 2 conflrmed in Appeal and Review; that against the removal order dated o5-o4.L997 , the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before trre Labour court, Godavarikhani vide I.D.No.14r of 2000. The presiding Oflicer vide order dated 2S.O9.2OOL passed an Award rejecting the claim of the petitioner with untenable hndings. Therefore, ttre petitioner liled the present writ petition seeking to set aside the Award passed by the Labour Court.

3. Heard Mr.P. Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Chandra Sekhar N, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation appearing for respondents.

4. Icarned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Presiding OIIicer failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to charge sheet wherein he stated that the tickets bearing Nos.011/86150O to 502 were misplaced by the passengers which was recorded in S.R. and he failed to check the ticket serial with the S.R. He furttrer states that the Presiding OIIicer failed to see that tJle workman never agreed his mistake in the spot explanation and the !{iorkman being the subordinate to the checking Offrcial, is bound to write and sign on ttte sPot explanation as directed by the checking Offrcials; otherwise it amounts to insubordination' The workman / specilically stated l.hat from the beginning he issued correct tickets to the batch of three (3) passengers, but the passengers ferilerl to show the tickets at the time of check and the passengers' versio:l that the three (3) tickets rvere misplaced was not recorded by the' checking checked the Conductor Ollicials; that thr: checking Oflicials .never cash bag or his p,)ckets and failed to the check tickets serie[ with S'R' and therefore, service Conductor was not responsible for loss of tickets. Hence, the petitioner prays this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside impugned order dated 25.t19.2O01 in I.A.No.141 of 20()0 on the fde of respondent No.2.

5. Per contruq the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Industrial Tribunal-cunt Labour Court, on considering ttre entire issue has rightly dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the petitioner himself admitted in his spol. explanation that he issued ickets of less denomination to the three (l)) passengers by mistake. Therefore, he states that there are no rncrirs in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made by the rest,ective parties and on peru sa. of the record, this Court is of the vieu. that admittedly, the petifioner in his spot e4prana60n (Ex M4) stated that he corected 4 Rs.ffi9/- from three passengers, but issued tickets worth Rs.369/- instead of Rs.669/- by mistake. F\rrther, in his explanation to the charge sheet i.e., Ex MlO, he has stated that three {3) passengers lost their tickets and that the checking Inspector threatened the passengers to impose hne. On considering the same, the Tribunal has rendered the impugned order. The relevant portions of the said order are extracted as under:- "Ex M-4 is spot explanation of t}re petitioner. The petitioner stated that he collected Rs.669/- from three passengers, but he issued tickets worth Rs.329/- (Rs.369/-) by mistake.

6. Ex M-8 is charge-sheet. Ex M-10 is explanation to the charge-sheet. The petitioner stated that t}le three passengers lost their tickets. The checking inq)ectors theatened the passengers to impose line. The petitioner had given go bye to his spot explanaticn and pl,eaded that he issued tickets to the three passengers correctly, but the passengers lost their tickets. It camot be believed that the passengers lost some tickets worth Rs.100/- each keeping other tickets with them.

7. Ex. M-15 is statement of N.M.Mohan, checking inspector. He stated that orr 2a-1O-96, he arld his partner Yellaialr conducted check of the bus bearing No.AP-9 -2-8645 at stage No.29 /7 near Lathur at about 3-3O hours and found three passengers traveUing from Bhivandi to Sircilla. They paid Rs.223/- each to ttle petitioner, but the petitioner issued tickets worth Rs.123/- each.

9. It cannot be believed that the three passengers lost one ticket of RS.1OO/- denomination each keeping the remaining tickets worth Rs- 123/- each with them- The petitioner admitted in his spot explanation that he issued less denomination tickets to the three passengers by mistake. rcYE-EEEI- f a1 / 5 I conr;ider that t]re charBes against t]re petitioner ;rre proved The p:titioner collected Rs.669/- from ttrree passeng(:rs and issued tickets worth Rs.369/-. The petitioner did not issue Lickets worth Rs.3OO/-. It cannot be ignored lightly. I consider t.Ilat the punishment of removal of the petitior-^er from the service is in proportion to the charges. It is lrot a fit case for consideration U/s.11-A ()f t:re Industrial Dis f,utes Acf.

7. As the petitioner himself admitted in the spot explanation that he issued less derromination tickets to three passengers, the Tribunal has rightly passe(l the impugned order. Moreover, as on the date of filing the Writ Pelition, the age of the petitioner was forg' four (44) ye€rrs. Now after a lapse of twenty three (23) years i.e., when petitioner has attained the age of sixty seven (67) years (he has already crossed the age of superannuation). Thereforr:, this Court f-rnds no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs;. Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall sta-nd closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. S JAWAHAR REODY IANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER --._---- To, 1 2. I Pff ES F#""' f,: IJs:fi?'rltr r#v_ocate IOpUCI for TSRTC ZOrue Z) [OpUC:] TJ LS HIGH COURT DATED:1710712'025 ORDER WP.No.6104 of 2002 .t\ '1 'tri SrqT c ( ) ') .:+" 2 5 t[T 2125 D, ..-(1.1a4.1 DISMISSING'T1{E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ b(