Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 944 (AP)

K. Srihari v. Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

2013-10-31

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

body2013
ORDER Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. The petitioner, a Conductor in the 2nd respondent Corporation (A.P. State Road Transport Corporation), filed the present writ petition assailing the award dated 01.08.2003 passed in I.D. No. 32 of 2002 by the Labour Court, Anantapur, apart from seeking consequential direction to the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back-wages, continuity of service, etc. The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined the service of the Corporation as Conductor on 31.12.1976 and continued to discharge his duties diligently. In course of time, he was issued with a charge sheet by the Corporation on the ground that the Chief Inspector of Chittoor Depot has reported that the petitioner is involved in misappropriation of bus cash on the basis of fake police warrants while performing his duty on service from Hyderabad to Chittoor. Though the petitioner has denied the allegations set out in the show cause notice by submitting a reply, the Corporation having not been satisfied with the said explanation, conducted a departmental enquiry and held that the charges have been proved. Eventually, the order of removal was passed on 18.07.2000 by the Corporation. 2. Assailing the said order of removal, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute before the 1st respondent in I.D. No. 32 of 2002, which also came to be dismissed through award dated 01.08.2003. Under those circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the award passed by the 1st respondent-Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-Corporation. 4. Though there has been a lot of factual controversy in the matter as to production of fake warrant certificates in the name of police on duty to travel without fare from Chittoor to Hyderabad and vice-versa, all those aspects have been adjudicated by the Tribunal, which eventually came to the conclusion of confirming the findings of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. 5. It is brought to my notice that earlier involving the same issue of producing fake warrants by the police or persons claiming to be the police, a batch of writ petitions has been filed and all of them have been disposed of. Incidentally, when the batch of writ petitions involving the same issue were dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, the aggrieved workmen took the matter in appeal before the Division Bench. Incidentally, when the batch of writ petitions involving the same issue were dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, the aggrieved workmen took the matter in appeal before the Division Bench. In one such an instance, the Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of Writ Appeal Nos. 1910, 1839, 1843, 1908, 1957, 1924, 1925 and 1926 of 2005, through its order dated 28.07.2009, has held as follows: Inasmuch as the finding of the enquiry officer is not based on evidence and as a matter of course, the matters have to go back to the file of the enquiry officer for recording a finding to that effect, but as we are informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that most of the appellants are on the verge of retirement and retired, we are inclined to pass the following order: (i) The order of removal passed against the appellants-workmen is hereby set aside and they are directed to be re-instated into service, if not already retired, forthwith. (ii) The appellants are imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 6. Subsequently in another set of writ petitions, i.e., W.P. Nos. 120 and 1443 of 2004, a learned Single Judge of this Court, through order dated 13.11.2009, following the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the appeals referred to supra, ordered reinstatement of the workmen into service. 7. It has been observed in both the cases i.e., by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge, that there was no evidence that the conductors themselves produced the fake warrants and misappropriated the money. Particularly, the Division Bench has also accepted the stand of the Conductors that there was no possibility of knowing about the correctness or otherwise of the police warrants and they simply relied upon the signatures of the issuing authority appearing on the warrants and the place of issue. Considering the same, the Division Bench has modified the punishment imposed upon the Conductors, setting aside the order of the removal from service and directing reinstatement into service, if not already retired, and imposed lesser punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. The learned Single Judge too has followed the same ratio in W.P. Nos. 120 and 1443 of 2004. 8. The learned Single Judge too has followed the same ratio in W.P. Nos. 120 and 1443 of 2004. 8. A perusal of the entire record indicates that the present case has an absolute factual similarity to those cases dealt with by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge. In the light of the ratio laid down in those judgments, it is appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition on the same lines. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part setting aside the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent-Corporation as was confirmed by the 1st respondent. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated, if he has not already retired. The modified punishment is to the effect that there shall be stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The said withholding of two increments shall start retroactively from the date of earlier punishment. However, the petitioner shall be granted continuity of service in view of the setting aside of the order of removal from service, and the same shall be taken into consideration for reckoning the petitioner's pensionary benefits, after giving effect to the substituted punishment of withholding of two increments. The 2nd respondent-Corporation shall complete this exercise and make due payment to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.