Partly allowed

M.A.P. Rao v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Telangana HC13 Dec 2012WP/16069/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court found charges against a conductor proved but set aside the Labour Court's inference that they implied misappropriation. Removal was deemed disproportionate; the conductor is reinstated without backwages, with past service counted for notional increments only.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated in service without backwages; past service reckoned for notional increments only; Award modified.

M.A.P. Rao Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 16069 of 2006

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the Award dated 08.11.2005 passed in I.D.No.26 of 2004 by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, confirming his removal from service.

¶5

2. Heard Sri Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Anand Shinde, learned counsel representing the Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’).

¶6

3. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Conductor in the Corporation Depot at Kushaiguda, which is the 2^nd respondent herein. On the allegations that he committed certain cash and ticket irregularities on 01.10.2002, a disciplinary enquiry was commenced against him on three charges. The three charges are as follows:

¶7

(i) For having failed to close the tray Nos. at Stage No.5 of Rs.5.50 deno at Stage No.7 of Rs.4/- and 6/denomination and at Stage No.9 all denominations, which constitutes serious misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”

¶8

(ii) For having collected an amount of Rs.16.50 ps and issued three (3) un-punched tickets bearing No.128/985908 to 128/985910 of Rs.5.50 ps denominations to a batch of three lady passengers found travelling who boarded the bus at Tarnaka and bound for Ambedkar Nagar, ex-stage 3 to 10, which constitutes serious misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”

¶9

(iii) For having un-authorisedly absent to the depot from 2.10.2002 onwards without any intimation, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 4(1) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”

¶10

4. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was held and the relevant witnesses i.e. the concerned ticket inspectors who conducted the check and also the petitioner, were examined. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 29.11.2002 to the 2^nd respondent holding that the three charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner was unsuccessful in his departmental remedies. Thereafter, he moved an individual industrial dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning his removal order. The Labour Court in the aforesaid I.D. confirmed his removal. The Labour Court, while agreeing with the findings of the disciplinary authority, observed that non-closing of the Statistical Return (SR) pertaining to the denominations of the ticket in Charge No.1 and issuing unpunched tickets to three passengers mentioned in Charge No.2 would have given a lot of scope to the petitioner to misappropriate the Corporation’s money if the check had not been conducted in time, and in that view of the matter, it concluded that the punishment of removal was the proper punishment.

¶11

5. Sri Narasimha Goud invited my attention to the Charges and also the evidence and pointed out that the petitioner committed the aforesaid irregularities not out of any intention but because of heavy rush in the bus and also having regard to the fact that just before the check, a serious quarrel broke out between the petitioner and a passenger and the latter abused the petitioner because of which the petitioner became depressed and could not carry out his duties. Sri Goud’s argument is that there is nothing on record to hold that the petitioner has misappropriated the Corporation’s money or the Charges would give scope for misappropriation and consequently the punishment of removal

¶12

from service is highly disproportionate punishment. He also requested for other benefits while pleading for reinstatement.

¶13

6. On the other hand, Sri Anand Shinde equally pointed out that the record of the Conductor is bad as he was earlier involved in cash and ticket irregularities. He also stated that the petitioner was once removed from service on that ground but was reinstated in a departmental appeal. He pointed out that the aforesaid charges would give scope for misappropriation and consequently supported the impugned Award.

¶14

7. So far as the proof of charges 1 to 3 is concerned including the 3^rd charge relating to unauthorised absence, there is evidence on record to hold them as proved. It may be noted that in the petitioner’s spot explanation, he did not take a plea about the quarrel between himself and a passenger as the reason for his not closing the tickets tray/SR. Hence, this explanation subsequently given by the petitioner cannot be accepted as a convincing one. Similarly, his version that there were about 50 passengers in the bus cannot also be accepted as 50 passengers cannot be said to be a heavy rush.

¶15

8. It may however be noted that a mere scope for misappropriation cannot be equated with misappropriation. It is possible that there may be several reasons for a Conductor for not closing the tray or for issuing unpunched tickets and it may show negligence towards duty.

¶16

9. Regarding the charge relating to three unpunched tickets, it may be noted that the evidence would disclose that the three tickets issued to the lady passengers were alone found to be

¶17

unpunched whereas other tickets issued to other passengers were found to be punched. Regarding closing of the SR or the tickets tray, it should be noted that one of the TTIs Sri NM Reddy, in his cross examination by the petitioner, admitted that when he was entering into the bus for checking, he found that the petitioner was in the process of closing the SR. Of course, there was delay on the part of the petitioner in closing the SR as he should have closed it even before the stage where the check was conducted.

¶18

10. As already mentioned, what should be noted is that the petitioner was appointed on 01.05.1991 and he was regularised in service on 02.05.1991 and the present check was conducted on 01.10.2002, and by that date, the petitioner had already put in roughly 11 years of service. From a conductor having such a length of service, one cannot expect above mistakes and therefore, the derelictions in the above two charges can be said to be serious charges though from them a scope for misappropriation cannot be inferred. Similarly, even the third charge of unauthorised absence, which is also proved, would show that the petitioner is not supposed to go like that on leave and even if he falls sick, he should report the matter immediately to the concerned authorities as, of course, sickness could be a good ground for granting leave. To repeat, the above circumstances only show gross negligence and derelictions of duty on the part of the petitioner and they of course deserve to be suitably punished. At the same time, removal from service can be said to be a disproportionate one.

¶19

11. In the above circumstances, and for the aforesaid reasons, while confirming the findings of the Labour Court regarding proof of charges, its further conclusions that they give scope for

¶20

misappropriation or the petitioner would have misappropriated, are set aside. Thus, consistent with the above findings recorded now, the punishment of removal from service is also set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service without backwages. As employees of the Corporation are not eligible for any pension, the past service of the petitioner shall be reckoned for the purpose of notional increments only, for calculation of retiral benefits subsequently. He is therefore granted continuity of service only to that extent. The Award is accordingly modified.

¶21

12. The writ petition is therefore partly allowed in the above terms. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶22

______________________________ (JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR)

¶23

13^th December, 2012 KSM

M.A.P. Rao v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A.P. Rao v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

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

Nirmala Babu Vs the Mang.Dir.a.P.S.S.C.Corp.Ltd.Hyd.

Director of Agriculture, Vs a.Appalasuri

Md.Hussain Vs The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, rep.by its

P. Seetharamulu, Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

P.Govindiah, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd.Jaffar Vs The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary