Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that reinstated an APSRTC Conductor removed for ticket irregularities without continuity of service or back wages, holding the Tribunal's lenient view was valid.
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 U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.5067 of 2003
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the Award dated 20.06.2000 in I.D.No.9 of 1999 passed by the Chairman-cumPresiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur (for short “the Industrial Tribunal”), whereunder the petitioner was reinstated into service as a ‘ Fresh Conductor ’ but without continuity of service or back wages.
a) The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in 2nd respondent— Corporation in the year 1978 and while he was conducting bus bearing No.9975 on the route from Ananthapur to Rayadurg, the authorities exercised check on 27.02.1997 and charge sheet was issued with three charges thus:
1. For having collected the requisite fare of Rs.18/- from a batch of two passengers who boarded your bus at Kalyandurg and bound for Rayadurg (Ex.stages 5-1) and failed to issue the valid tickets to them on 27.02.1997 when checked by the TTIs of Headquarters, Enforcement Squad, Kadiri at stage No.3/2 on route Ananthapur to Rayadurg, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(vi)(a) and (x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963.
2. For having closed the SR of all denominations upto the check point without completing the above tickets issued which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.
2
3. For having violated the rules “issue and start” which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.”
b) The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that there were 82 passengers at the time of check and taking advantage of the situation, some of the passengers failed to purchase the ticket and due to overload he could not tally the number of passengers with issued tickets and requested the checking officials to check the bus cash but they did not accede his request and there was no fault on his part.
c) Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the authorities appointed Enquiry Officer who after enquiry held the petitioner guilty of the charges vide his enquiry report dated 05.06.1997 upholding the charges levelled against the petitioner. Basing on the said report the 2nd respondent—Depot Manager passed an order dated 01.10.1997 terminating the petitioner from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed I.D.No.9 of 1998 wherein the Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the management to reinstate the petitioner as Conductor afresh but without continuity of service or back wages.
Hence, the instant writ petition.
b) Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed counter and opposed the petition contending that during the check done by the officials of the Corporation on 27.02.1997, the petitioner was found committing certain serious cash and ticket irregularities. Basing on the report of checking officials, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and he was removed from service.
3
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed I.D.No.9 of 1998 before the 1st respondent and the Tribunal took a lenient view and passed Award dated 20.06.2000 directing the management to reinstate the petitioner into service as ‘ fresh conductor ’ but without continuity of service and back wages. Thus the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
“Whether the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is factually and legally sustainable?”
4
the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved, the Courts and Tribunals, shall not interfere with the same in the judicial review. Vide:
High Court can only see whether:
“Para-12:
1 (2011) 4 SCC 584
2 (2005) 7 SCC 338
3 (2015)2 SCC 610
5
6
stated as if they paid Rs.18/- but he does not remember whether they paid the amount or not. Had they paid the amount he would have issued tickets to them.
a) Then, the enquiry report shows that the Enquiry Officer has observed that the petitioner after collecting Rs.18/- from the two passengers who are wife and husband did not issue tickets to them and since the petitioner was conducting to a fast service bus, he had sufficient time to check the passengers and tickets before closing the SR but he neglected his duty. He thus, held that the charge was established. A perusal of the record would show that the spot explanation of the petitioner was not that the passengers did not pay him money but he did not remember whether they paid money or not. Be that it may, as a conductor it is his duty to check whether all the passengers have been issued tickets or not. Whether the passengers gave a false statement before the authorities that they paid the amount is not the main issue. As already stated, the Conductor is duty bound to check and see that the tickets were issued to all the passengers. Thus, he has not followed the “ issue and start ” rule. In that view of the matter, the guilt of the petitioner is manifest. Therefore, the department as well as the Tribunal have rightly found him guilty of misconduct.
b) Then, coming to the proportionality of the punishment, the Tribunal took a lenient view and set aside his dismissal order and directed him to be reinstated but without back wages and continuity of service. Since the Tribunal has already shown clemency, in the considered view of this Court, there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
7
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
Date: 08.06.2018 Murthy
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Tribunal's award reinstating the petitioner without continuity of service or back wages is factually and legally sustainable?
Whether the High Court should interfere in departmental proceedings unless the enquiry suffers perversity or punishment is shockingly disproportionate?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand NalwayaExplained¶22
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya
V. Ramana vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and othersExplained¶23
V. Ramana vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and others
Union of India vs. P. GunasekaranReferred¶25
Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran (3) (2015)2 SCC 610 · Who else cites this
Petitioner
APSRTC
U. Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
