Allowed

Sri S.S. Reddy v. The Labour Court-Iii

Telangana HC23 Sept 2010WP/200/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging removal from service. The court quashed the removal order affirmed by the Labour Court due to lack of evidence regarding intoxication and misconduct, directing reinstatement without back wages.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without back wages. Order dated 16-11-1998 set aside.

Sri S.S. Reddy Vs The Labour Court-Iii — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.200 of 2004

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner was employed as a driver in Nagarkurnool Depot of APSRTC in the year 1990. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 27-06-1998 alleging that he resorted to acts of misconduct on 12-061998. He submitted a reply to the notice and not being satisfied with that, he appointed an enquiry Officer. Taking the report of the enquiry officer into account, the 2^nd respondent passed an order, dated 16-111998 directing removal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.171 of 1999 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The Labour Court passed an award, dated 0607-2001, dismissing the I.D. Hence, this writ petition.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged acts of misconduct were outside the duty hours and at a time when the petitioner was getting ready to resume duty early in the morning. He contended that though vague and bald allegations have been made to the effect that the petitioner was in a drunken condition, no witness has spoken to that effect nor any medical report was submitted.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the T.T.I., who found himself disturbed when the petitioner knocked the door, got framed the charges and got the disciplinary proceedings initiated. He further submits that the Labour Court did not appreciate the matter from the correct perspective and though the evidence on record does not prove the charges, relief was denied to him.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner misbehaved with other employees and created scene in the office. He contends that on account of the act of indiscipline of the petitioner, bus services were disrupted, and the charges against the petitioner were held proved.

¶7

The petitioner was on duty on 10-06-1998 and reached the

¶8

depot at 7 p.m. Since he has no conveyance to go to his place, he is said to have slept in the rest room. It is stated that he was woke up by Depot staff at 4.00 a.m. stating that he was entrusted with a special duty to drive the service from Nagarkurnool to Hyderabad and the petitioner was required to cancel his special off. He contends that with a view to get ready for the duty, he knocked the door of another rest room to wash face and to attend nature calls and the T.T.I., who was sleeping by locking the door from inside, felt disturbed and scolded him in filthy language. The complaint is said to have been prepared to the dictation of the T.T.I.

¶9

Two charges framed against the petitioner read as under:-

¶10

1. “For having creating nuisance with public and with checking officials on 12-06-1998 at 04.00 hrs, at Kollapur Bus Stand which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (Viii) and (XXXii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.”

¶11

2. “For having found you were in a drunken condition when the TTIs of RES/MB exercised a check on 1206-1998 resulting detention of vehicle by the TTIs causing loss of revenue to the Corporation besides causing lot of inconvenience to the travelling public, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (IX-a) and (XXi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.”

¶12

A perusal of the charges discloses that to attend nature calls, an attempt was made by the petitioner to have access to the rest room, where the T.T.I. was sleeping. It is not denied that the petitioner was required to attend special duty at 4.30 a.m. Though an allegation was made to the effect that the petitioner was found in intoxicated condition, no evidence was produced in the form of medical report and oral evidence of the witnesses was inadequate. The allegations made by the T.T.I. were taken on their face value and the petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from service.

¶13

Before the Labour court, the petitioner urged that no evidence was adduced against him to the effect that he consumed any

¶14

intoxicant. The Labour Court observed that even the T.T.I. at whose instance charges were issued, was not examined as witness. It was not denied that there is no report, which discloses that the petitioner was in intoxicated condition. It is rather unfortunate that the Labour Court took the view that the conduct of the petitioner subsequent to the incident is questionable and subversive to the dignity of the Corporation employee. The delay in submission of the explanation was taken into account for denying the relief. The approach of the Labour Court is totally perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. Once it is found that there is no evidence, oral or documentary, to substantiate the charge against the petitioner, there was absolutely no basis for sustaining the punishment. The lack of restraint on the part of the petitioner, if any, ought not to have resulted in such a severe punishment.

¶15

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 1611-1998, as affirmed by the Labour Court, is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without back wages. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

___________ 23-09-2010

¶17

Prv

Sri S.S. Reddy v. The Labour Court-Iii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S.S. Reddy v. The Labour Court-Iii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.V.V.S.N. Murthy Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh

P. Anthony Das Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

N. Lakshmi Kumari W/o Anjaneyulu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh repby its Principal Secrtary

G.Pentaiah, S/o.Atchaiah, R/o.Ex.Khallasi(shore) Vs The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Chief Mechanical

Gorle Joginaidu, S/o. Simhachalam, Hindu, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Smt. Kaka Ademma, W/o. Pothuraju, Vs The District Collector, Khammam.