A conductor challenged his departmental punishment of stopping two increments. The High Court held the punishment was not disproportionate to the proven misconduct of ticket irregularities and dismissed the writ petition.
None; writ petition dismissed and subsequent matter disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.14567 of 2001
Date: October 18, 2012
Between:
Sri K.B. Mohiddin And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Podili, Prakasam District, and others
… Petitioner
… Respondents
Order:
This writ petition is filed questioning the award dated 26.09.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.61 of 1999.
Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the service of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and attached to Podili Depot in Prakasam District. On 07.04.1996, he was conducting the bus bearing No.AEZ 5818 en-route KondepiPodili. In between, a check was exercised by the checking officials and they noticed certain serious cash and ticket irregularities. On the said allegation, placing the petitioner under suspension, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and
the following two charges were framed against him:
1. “For having violated the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.
2. For having failed to collect the requisite fare of Rs.1.75 ps. each and issue tickets to five individual passengers who boarded the bus at Juvvigunta and found alighting at Sannamur ex-stages nos.6 to 6/5, while you were performing the service on the route KondepiPodili on 7-4-96, which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28 (ix-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.”
When the petitioner denied the charges, enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry on the said charges. The enquiry officer recorded finding against the petitioner holding that the charges framed against him are proved, basing on which order removing the petitioner from service was passed. As against the same, petitioner filed statutory appeal and the appellate authority modified the punishment of removal to that of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect and further ordered to treat the period of suspension as not on duty for the purpose of leave and wages. After the said order, petitioner was reinstated on 07.09.1996. Thereafter, he filed a review petition, which was rejected. Further, he raised industrial dispute vide I.D.No.61 of 1999 under Section 101(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Guntur. T h e Labour Court, while justifying the
punishment of deferment of two increments with cumulative effect, held that respondents are not justified in treating the suspension period as not on duty. Precisely, the award was given in favour of the petitioner partly, i.e. to the extent of confirming the punishment of stoppage of two increments. Thereafter, petitioner filed this writ petition and the respondents-Corporation filed another writ petition, being W.P.No.15725 of 2001, which is stated to be dismissed by order dated 25.01.2010, which has become final.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even taking the charges framed against the petitioner as they are, there was no monetary loss to the Corporation and hence the punishment imposed, as modified by the appellate authority and confirmed by the Labour Court, i.e. stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges.
In this case, it is to be noticed that though there was some explanation offered by the petitioner for not issuing tickets when the checking officials inspected the bus with number of passengers, but, such explanation was not believable. There is specific allegation of violation of the rule ‘Issue and Start’, which constitutes misconduct. It is the case of the petitioner that one passenger was not accepting full ticket, as demanded by him, but, at the same time, no reason has been assigned for violating the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 28 of the
Regulations. It is true that there is no allegation of misappropriation of revenues of the Corporation as per the charges framed. But, at the same time, it cannot be said that there is no misconduct at all on the part of the petitioner. When the rule of ‘Issue and Start’ is framed only to check the conduct of the Conductors in issuing tickets, such rule ought to have been followed by the petitioner before the bus started. As the petitioner failed to do so, misconduct is proved to that extent. It is also to be noticed that the primary authority passed order removing the petitioner from service, which is modified by the appellate authority to that of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, by treating the period of suspension as not on duty. When he raised an I.D., t h e Labour Court itself granted further relief holding that treating the period of suspension as not on duty is not justified. At the same time, it has confirmed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect.
Having regard to the evidence on record and the proven misconduct, punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect cannot be treated to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Hence, this Court is of the view that the punishment imposed is in proportion to the misconduct proven against the petitioner and there are no valid grounds to seek further modification in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, WPMP No.18224 of 2001 also stands disposed of.
_____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J October 18, 2012 MRR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was disproportionate to the proven misconduct of violating the 'Issue and Start' rule.
Whether the writ petition challenging the Labour Court award has merit under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
K.B. Mohiddin
Departmental Manager, APSRTC, Podili
R. Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
