Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 40 (AP)

T. Nagaiah v. Depot Manager, Apsrtc

2022-01-06

K.SURESH REDDY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Questioning the Award, dated 14.12.2006 passed in I.D.No.290 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard both the learned counsel. 3. Facts in nutshell : The petitioner herein was appointed as Conductor by the respondent-Corporation and he was discharging his duties without any complaint. While so, on 12.09.2002, when he was conducting duty on route Rayachoti - Kotakadapalli, at about 8.00 pm., a check was conducted by the Checking Officials at Stage No.2 and found certain cash and ticket irregularities. Basing on their report, the 1st respondent herein suspended the petitioner from service on 18.09.2002 and issued a charge sheet against the petitioner with the following charge : CHARGES : 'For having re-issued E.3 of Rs.6-50 denomination tickets (numbers E-2 of Rs.6-50 denomination from 448/992742 to 448/992743 and E.1 of Rs.6-50 denomination No.448/992745 having punching marks from 5 to 1 which were issued to a batch of two passengers and individual passenger who boarded the bus at Rayachoty and bound for Dudyala exstages 1 to 4/5 while you were conducting the service from 19-00 hrs., Rayachoty-Kotakadaplli even though you have already issued and accounted the above E.3 tickets against stage No.5 in 15-00 hrs., Kotakadapalli Rayachoty trip on the same day which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.'. 4. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 26.09.2002. Dissatisfied with the same, the domestic enquiry was initiated and statements have been recorded. After receipt of report from the enquiry officer, the 1st respondent issued show- cause notice, dated 25.1.2003, for which, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 03.02.2003. Dissatisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent passed an order of punishment i.e., Removal from service, vide proceedings, dated 13.02.2003, in No.02/95(255)/2002-RCTY of DM/Rayachoty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate authority, which was rejected on 15.04.2003. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review, which was also rejected on 06.08.2003, vide proceedings No.PA/20A(24)/2003-RM'C'. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute in I.D.No.290 of 2003 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate authority, which was rejected on 15.04.2003. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review, which was also rejected on 06.08.2003, vide proceedings No.PA/20A(24)/2003-RM'C'. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute in I.D.No.290 of 2003 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. After considering the material available on record, the Tribunal passed an Award, dated 14.12.2006 by partly allowing the I.D., The operative portion of the Award reads as follows : 'The order of removal of the petitioner from service issued by the respondent in his proceedings dated, 12.03.2003 as confirmed by the Divisional Manager and Regional Manager is hereby set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated into service by the respondent within one month from the date of publication of the Award. He shall not be entitled for continuity of service, attendant benefits and backwages'. 6. This Court perused the Award and entire material on record. In the findings of the Award, the Labour Court observed as follows : 'The petitioner in his explanation Ex.M16, dated 03.02.2003 which he submitted as against show cause notice stated that he produced passenger in question by name Reddaiah, who stated that by mistake he has shown at the time of check the previous journey tickets while keeping correct tickets in his pocket. The said passenger Reddaiah also stated the same fact before the Enquiry Officer in his statement Ex.M11, whom the checking official also identified by his endorsement underneath the said statement. The Checking Official who identified the above stated passenger in question at the time of enquiry that he was the same person travelled in the bus at the relevant time, failed to cross- examine on the aspect of production of old tickets by keeping new tickets in his pocket and even no suggestion was put to him that he was gained over by the petitioner herein for the purpose of defending and such being the case it has to be trusted the explanation of the petitioner. At the time of check also there were 59 passengers + 27 passengers holding bus passes + 3 passengers in question in total there were 89 passengers travelling in the bus i.e., the bus was over loaded. At the time of check also there were 59 passengers + 27 passengers holding bus passes + 3 passengers in question in total there were 89 passengers travelling in the bus i.e., the bus was over loaded. When the capacity is more in the bus, there would likely occur minor lapses which could be rectified so long there was no malafied intention in doing a particular Act, which is prohibited by the regulations. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in 1997 (2) ALD 558 rendered in S.Pulla Reddy Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa District and Another, where in his Lordship held as follows : 'Conductor removed from service for charges reissuing the ticket once sold contravening the rule of issue and start and for closing the tray numbers without completing the issue of tickets - Same confirmed by Labour Court - The Labour Court failed to consider the improbability of the prior knowledge that the same four passengers are going to travel by the same bus in the return trip and the failure to check the cash in the bag of conductor which conclusively prove the charges - In the circumstances, held, the punishment of removal is not called for - The conductor is ordered to be reinstated without backwages and without any continuity in service'. In the case on hand also the passenger in question travelled in the same bus in the previous trip about 4 or 5 hours ago prior to the check to go to hospital and in the same bus they appeared to have returned to their place and the said passengers being illiterates there is every possibility of showing earlier tickets by mistake and the checking officials ought to have given time to them for production of valid tickets. The above stated principle of law is quite applicable to the case on hand and under the given circumstances the order of removal of the petitioner from service issued by the Respondent has to be set aside and order for his reinstatement, but without continuity of service, attendant benefits and backwages. 7. As seen from the above findings, the Tribunal held that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. If that is the case, question of imposing any punishment does not arise. 7. As seen from the above findings, the Tribunal held that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. If that is the case, question of imposing any punishment does not arise. Therefore, under the said circumstances, the Award of the Tribunal is modified only to the extent that the petitioner is also entitled to continuity of service and other attendant benefits. As far as backwages are concerned, in view of the principle of 'No Work No Pay', the petitioner is not entitled to backwages. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and other attendant benefits only and not entitled to backwages. 9. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No costs.