Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 259 (AP)

R. R. Naidu v. A. P. S. R. T. C.

2014-02-19

D.SESHADRI NAIDU

body2014
ORDER 1. The petitioner, a conductor in the 1st respondent Corporation (A.P. State Road Transport Corporation), filed the present writ petition questioning the award dated 19.11.2003 in I.D. of 2002 passed by the 3rd respondent Labour Court, which, in fact, confirmed the order of removal dated 03.10.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent disciplinary authority. The facts in brief are that, when the petitioner was conducting the bus of the 1st respondent Corporation, on 01.06.2000, a surprise check was exercised. On verification, the checking officials found variation in the SR concerning the tickets of seven rupee denomination, when compared with the actual number of tickets that were found in the handle. When the charge memo was issued to the petitioner, he did not submit any spot explanation. Later when the departmental enquiry took place, the petitioner is said to have offered very limited excuse with regard to the discrepancy. Not satisfied with the explanation, having conducted an enquiry, based on the material on record, the disciplinary authority imposed on the petitioner the major punishment of removal from service through an order dated 03.10.2000. After unsuccessful efforts in intra-departmental appeal and revision, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 18 of 2002. On appreciation of the material on record, the Labour Court passed a nil award on 19.11.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no misappropriation of amounts by the petitioner. It is not a case of ticketing irregularity, much less that of cash. As the petitioner was in a confused state of mind, given his inadequate educational background, he did not give any spot explanation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the failure of the petitioner to give any spot explanation, which is preliminary in nature, and which is not any substantive piece of evidence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that a bunch of tickets of seven rupee denomination was found thrown in a corner of the bus. Presuming that it was done by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, as well as the Labour Court, concluded that if there had been no check, the petitioner could have used them for the purpose of reissue. Presuming that it was done by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, as well as the Labour Court, concluded that if there had been no check, the petitioner could have used them for the purpose of reissue. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is only, even assuming the version of the management to be true, a preparation on the part of the petitioner to commit a ticketing irregularity. Since no used ticket was issued by the petitioner to any passenger after collecting the requisite fare, it cannot be treated as a major misconduct. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, as has been confirmed by the Labour Court, is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct the petitioner has been charged with. 4. Per contra, Sri Ravi Mahender, the learned counsel representing Smt. K. Sarala Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, has stated that it is a clear case of ticketing irregularity. When a check was exercised, only on seeing the checking officials, the petitioner, in all probability, got rid of the extra tickets with him by throwing them away in one bunch in the corner of the bus, ostensibly to be used for the purpose of reissue. Strongly supporting the order of the disciplinary authority, as well as the award of the Labour Court, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no lenience was required to be shown towards the petitioner and accordingly he had been served with the charge memo and eventually punished. The learned Standing Counsel has also stated that though the award was rendered by the Labour Court on 19.11.2003, the writ petition was filed belatedly in February, 2006. Thus, there are incurable laches on the petitioner's part. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel has urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merit. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Corporation, apart from perusing the record. 6. There is not much of controversy over the facts. In the bus, the checking officials found a bunch of seven tickets which had already been punched and accounted for. In fact, they were found in a corner of the bus. 6. There is not much of controversy over the facts. In the bus, the checking officials found a bunch of seven tickets which had already been punched and accounted for. In fact, they were found in a corner of the bus. In the light of the discrepancy in the SR, on seeing the checking officials only, the petitioner may have got rid of the extra tickets with him by throwing them in one bunch in the corner of the bus, ostensibly to be used for the purpose of reissue. 7. A perusal of the award impugned amply indicates that the Labour Court has taken all aspects into consideration while confirming the findings of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as has been confirmed by the Labour Court. 8. Having said that, this Court is of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the proportionality of the punishment cannot be brushed aside entirely. A contemplated misconduct is no completed misconduct, not even an attempted one. For such a supposedly contemplated misconduct, summary removal of the petitioner from service is shockingly disproportionate. It is axiomatic that a contemplative misdeed does not entail the same punishment as could be imposed in the instance of completed or attempted ones. It is reported at the bar that, now the petitioner, having been out of service for many years, is hardly left with one year of service, even if he were to be reinstated. 9. It will meet the ends of justice, if the award of the Labour Court is modified, though not substantially, by taking the totality of circumstances into account, to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to be more cautious in future. This Court, therefore, hereby sets aside the award dated 19.11.2003 passed by the Labour Court. Consequently, the 1st respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without attendant benefits and back wages. Given the fact that the petitioner is left with one year of service, if the petitioner is charged with any other misconduct in future, it shall be viewed seriously and the 1st respondent-Corporation is at liberty to initiate appropriate action in that regard taking into account his (sic. this) misconduct as well. Given the fact that the petitioner is left with one year of service, if the petitioner is charged with any other misconduct in future, it shall be viewed seriously and the 1st respondent-Corporation is at liberty to initiate appropriate action in that regard taking into account his (sic. this) misconduct as well. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. Disposed off.