Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1426 (AP)

Rasheed v. Managing Director

2014-11-26

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.N.REDDY

body2014
Judgment L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. No. 16867 of 2006 filed this writ appeal. The appellant joined the service of A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1981. In the year 2002, he was working in the Sangareddy Depot of the Corporation, 2nd respondent herein. On 16.04.2002, he was operating a service from Patancheru to Ordinance Factory. A check was conducted en route. The 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet to the appellant, alleging that he had issued used tickets to 4 or 5 passengers. The charges in relation thereto were framed. The appellant submitted his explanation denying the charges. According to him, he issued the correct tickets but some of the passengers may have shown the tickets that were purchased by them in the earlier trips. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 2nd respondent ordered domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer held the charges as proved. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed the order, dated 06.11.2002 imposing the punishment of removal from service. 2. The appellant filed I.D. No. 86 of 2003 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Through its award, dated 27.12.2005, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D. Thereupon, the appellant filed W.P. No. 16876 of 2006. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order, dated 19.03.2014. Hence, this writ appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had clean record spread over more than two decades and that the inaccurate and misleading statement made by some of the passengers, who may have avoided taking tickets, was treated as an act of misconduct and major penalty was imposed. He submits that even the Labour Court did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and still refused to grant relief. Learned counsel submits that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge did not take into account the purport of the precedents cited before them by distinguishing them on totally irrelevant aspects. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the charges framed against the appellant are very grave in nature and once they were held proved, the inescapable conclusion is that the punishment of removal must be imposed. He further submits that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have dealt with every aspect in detail and did not find any basis to interfere with the order of removal. He further submits that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have dealt with every aspect in detail and did not find any basis to interfere with the order of removal. He contends that no interference is warranted with the concurrent findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. 5. The appellant joined the service of the Corporation way back in the year 1981. In the year 2002, when he was conducting a bus, a check was effected. The charges framed against him read- 1. For having failed to observe the rule Issue & Start, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having failed to issue valid tickets to one passenger found travelling from 6 to 8/9 Patancheru-Bhanur inspite of collecting requisite fare of Rs. 5/- you have reissued the ticket bearing No. 492/9998504 of Rs. 5/- denomination which was already sold in 13-35 hrs trip at stage No. 6 and accounted in the SR, which constitutes mis-conduct under Reg. 28(xxiii) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having failed to issue valid tickets to a batch of two passengers found travelling from Patancheru-ODF, Ex. stages 6 to 8 inspite of collecting requisite fare of Rs. 8/- at the boarding point itself you have re-issued the ticket bearing No. 803/0655791 and 792 of Redenomination E2 which was already sold in 13-35 hrs trip at stage No. 6 and accounted in the SR, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) & (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. For having failed to issue valid tickets to two individual passengers found travelling from Patancheru to Nandigama ex-stages 6 to 8 inspite of collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 8/- you have re-issued the ticket boarding Nos. 803/065785 and 803/065790 of Rs. 4/- deno. E2 which was already sold in 12-40 hrs trip and accounted in the SR, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxiii) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963." 6. The substance of these charges is that five passengers are said to have been issued used tickets of denomination of Rs. 5/- (1) and Rs. 4/- (4). The checking staff naturally verified the number of tickets with reference to the statistical report. 1963." 6. The substance of these charges is that five passengers are said to have been issued used tickets of denomination of Rs. 5/- (1) and Rs. 4/- (4). The checking staff naturally verified the number of tickets with reference to the statistical report. If in fact the appellant has deliberately issued the tickets, which have already been used on the earlier occasion, it is certainly a matter of serious nature. The plea of the appellant was that he issued proper tickets to all the passengers. 7. If 3 or 4 passengers have shown the tickets purchased by them on the earlier occasion, it is to be treated that they are wrongly travelling on the basis of such tickets. The Labour Court found that the very first charge is not proper. That however does not make much of difference. The question is as to whether the Corporation is able to prove that the appellant issued used tickets. 8. In this behalf, the enquiry officer no doubt found that the charges were proved. However, in its discussion, the Labour Court took note of the fact that the tickets of denomination of Rs. 5/- were sold in the same bus during the trip at 13.35 hrs., whereas the trip in question was at 18.05 hrs. After perusal of the record, the Labour Court felt as under: "There is no statement of passenger pertains to ticket number 803/065785. The ticket bearing No. 803/065785 was sold during 12.40 hours trip accounted at stage No. 1 but there is no material to show that the said ticket was seized from a particular passenger and the aid passenger statement was recorded. There is other material in the reports of checking officials on the check sheet and the charge memo and they report that the ticket No. 803/065785 was seized. Seizer of the ticket is not the criteria; it is to be established that the said ticket was seized from a particular name of a passengers therefore, there is no valid and believable material to show that the ticket bearing No. 803/065785 was seized from a particular passenger who was travelling in the bus at the time of check. Therefore, the material is available only against there Rs. 4/- tickets and one Rs. 5/- ticket" 9. This finding itself would have been sufficient to doubt the charges, atleast in part. Therefore, the material is available only against there Rs. 4/- tickets and one Rs. 5/- ticket" 9. This finding itself would have been sufficient to doubt the charges, atleast in part. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that it is not essential to examine the passengers in the domestic enquiry in the matters of this nature, atleast when the factum of issuance of re-issued tickets is disputed, the Corporation ought to have ensured that the concerned passengers are examined. If it were to be established that the passengers travelled in the same bus on an earlier trip on the same day, a totally different picture would have emerged. The livelihood of not only the appellant but also his entire family is at stake, and it depended upon the version of one or two passengers. The possibility of the passenger, who happened to travel on the same route, showing the ticket purchased by him earlier, to avoid imposition of fine by the checking staff, cannot be ruled out. Though the appellant cannot be given a clean-chit, on such doubts, atleast a case can be made out under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, enabling the Labour Court to mould the relief. 10. In the service of more than two decades, the appellant did not face even one serious charge. The minor punishments of stoppage of increments are said to have been imposed. The service operated by him was of short distance and the passengers keep on boarding and alighting at short distances. This Court is of the view that the relief of reinstatement without backwages and attendant benefits can be granted. 11. Hence, the writ appeal and writ petition are partly allowed modifying the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 86 of 2003 to the effect that- "(a) the order of removal, dated 06.11.2002 shall stand set aside; (b) the appellant shall be reinstated into service with the scale of pay, which he would have otherwise drawn, but without backwages and attendant benefits; and (c) his past service shall be counted only for the limited purpose of retirement benefits." 12. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.