Dismissed

Smt.Jyothula Padmaja Kumari v. The Labour Court

Telangana HC9 Dec 2016WP/4459/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an award confirming her removal from service due to misconduct charges. The High Court held that since the Labour Court had applied legal principles and addressed the quantum of punishment, reappreciation of evidence under Article 226 was impermissible, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Smt.Jyothula Padmaja Kumari Vs The Labour… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4459 OF 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed against the Award dated 05.09.2007 in I.D.No.187 of 2003 on the file of 1^st respondent granting no relief to the petitioner, confirming the order of removal passed against the petitioner.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioner was a conductor and she was issued charge

¶6

sheet with following charges:

¶7

“1. For having collected an amount of Rs.4/- each from individual passengers boarded at Ponnur and bound to upparapalem Ex.Stages 1 to 3 and issued ticket Nos.141 and 145 of Rs.4/- denm. Which were already issued and accounted at Stage No.4 by your SR in its down service of the first trip from Lingamguntapalem to Ponnur, while you were conducting the bus 2046 on 10.03.2002, on the route ponnurLingamguntapalem which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC employees (conduct) Reg. 1963.

¶8

For having collected an amount of Rs.6-50/- from a lady passenger boarded at ponnur and bound for chinalingayapalem Ex.States 1 to 4/5 and issued ticket No.514 of 6.50/- which was already issued and accounted against stage No.2 by you in SR in its up service of the first trip from ponnurLingamguntapalem while you were conducting the Bus 2046 on 10.03.2002 which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees REg.1963.

¶9

For having collected an amount of Rs.5/- from a lady passenger boarded at Ponnur and bound for stages 1 to 4 and issued with an unconnected ticket No.076 of Rs.5/- not belongs to you hand tray and way bill while you were conducting the bus on 10.03.2002 on the rout ponnur-Lingamguntapalem, which constitutes misconduct under REg. 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) REg.1963.

¶10

For having failed to observed the rule “Issue & Start” while you were conducting the bus 2046 on the route ponnur-

¶11

Lingamguntapalem on 10.03.20025 which constitutes misconduct under REg. 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) REg.1963.

¶12

For having closed all the denominations of tickets at stage No.2 in you service without issuing proper tickets while you were conducting the bus on 210.03.2002 on the route Ponnur-Lingamguntapalem, which constitutes misconduct under REg.28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) REg.1963.”

¶13

After explanation was filed by the petitioner in pursuance to the charge sheet, regular enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry it is found that the all the above five charges are proved. The disciplinary authority once again confirmed the same by passing the order of dismissal and the appellate authority is also of the same view and confirmed the said order. The petitioner thereafter approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court extensively gone into the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the order confirmed by the disciplinary authority and came to the conclusion that all the five charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. Labour Court also relied on several judgments regarding the scope of interference by it.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner before the Labour Court filed a Memo stating that they are not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry.

¶15

Labour Court also considered quantum of punishment and found that it is not a fit case to interfere with the quantum of punishment.

¶16

Since the Labour Court analyzed the whole issue by referring to principles laid down in several decisions of Apex

¶17

Court, this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence by exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶18

In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not see any merit to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶20

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

¶21

09-12-2016 dv

Smt.Jyothula Padmaja Kumari v. The Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Jyothula Padmaja Kumari v. The Labour Court

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

Vemuri Lakshmi Narayana Sastry Vs T.Chandrasekhara Rao

Lingala Appala Chitti Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

A.Chandramohan, Vs The District Collector

L.Srinivasa Rao Vs Smt. T. saroja

Meesala Raja Rao, Vs The Regional Manager

M. Vijay Kumar, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation