Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 156 (TS)

Md. Yousuf v. Regional Manager, APSRTC

2026-01-23

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2026
ORDER: NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Award dated 15.05.2006 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’) in I.D.No.52 of 2004. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1984 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.07.1987. On 04.04.2002, while the petitioner was conducting the bus from Armoor to Manthani, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Manthani and issued Memo alleging that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities and the petitioner submitted explanation to the said Memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent suspended the petitioner from service. Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. (b) A final show-cause notice of removal was issued to the petitioner on 27.07.2002. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said show-cause notice. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings dated 16.08.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed departmental appeal and review and the same were rejected on 01.12.2002 and 12.08.2003 respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.52 of 2004 before the Labour Court and the same was allowed in part on 15.05.2006. (c) Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court insofar as denial of back wages, attendant benefits and treating the removal period as not on duty is contrary to the material available on record. The Labour Court, having coming to the conclusion that there was every possibility of missing of passengers in the overload of 108 passengers against the capacity of 60 passengers, that the passengers in question accepted their guilty and paid penalty and that the respondents ought not to have imposed the punishment of removal from service and ought to have granted the relief of back wages, attendant benefits and should have treated the removal period as on duty. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to grant back wages, attendant benefits and treat the interregnum period of removal as on duty and allow the writ petition. 4. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to grant back wages, attendant benefits and treat the interregnum period of removal as on duty and allow the writ petition. 4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the year 1984 and later his services were regularized. While in service, he was imposed with several punishments. Earlier, he was removed from service on 22.07.1994 and later he was reinstated as a fresh conductor on 10.04.1997. Earlier, the petitioner was involved in cash and ticket irregularities and he was removed from service on 10.07.1997 and later he was reinstated into service on 16.02.1998. Thereafter, he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities on 04.04.2002. The respondents have issued charge-sheet on 20.04.2002 framing the following charges :- “1. For having failed to collect requisite fare of Rs.3/- each in total Rs.21/- and issue ticket to seven passengers who boarded the bus at Pipri and found alighting at Manthani ex.stages 2 to 3 without tickets which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963. 2. For having kept ticket tray numbers of Rs.3/- denomination blank in the SR against stage No.3 and closed the remaining tray numbers which the TTIs marked ‘XXX’ in the blank column which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (xvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 3. For having violated Rule “Issue tickets and Start” which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” (b) The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said charge-sheet. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a regular enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The Enquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 06.07.2002. The petitioner submitted his comments on 25.07.2002. After going through the evidence available on record, the enquiry report and the comments of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority came to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. (c) A show-cause notice of removal was issued to the petitioner on 27.07.2002. The petitioner submitted explanation to the said show-cause notice. Not satisfied with the said explanation, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 16.08.2002. (c) A show-cause notice of removal was issued to the petitioner on 27.07.2002. The petitioner submitted explanation to the said show-cause notice. Not satisfied with the said explanation, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 16.08.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal and review and the same were rejected on 01.12.2002 and 12.08.2003 respectively. Further aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.52 of 2004 and the Labour Court vide order dated 15.05.2006 while setting aside the order of removal directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service, denied back wages and attendant benefits and treated the interregnum period of removal as not on duty. Challenging the order dated 15.05.2006, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that earlier the respondents have imposed several punishments on the petitioner for involvement in cash and ticket irregularities and for unauthorized absenteeism. On 04.04.2002, while the petitioner was performing duty on bus bearing No.3084, a check was exercised by the checking officials and found certain irregularities. Therefore, the disciplinary authority, after considering the material available on record, imposed the punishment of removal from service. The Labour Court by taking a lenient view rightly passed the impugned Award and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Srushman Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned award dated 15.05.2006 passed in I.D.No.52 of 2004, insofar as denying back wages and treating the removal period as ‘not on duty,’ is contrary to the material available on record. The Labour Court, having come to the conclusion that there was every possibility of passengers being missed due to overloading of 108 passengers against the seating capacity of 60 passengers and that the passengers accepted their guilt and paid the penalty, and there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner in not collecting the fare or issuing tickets, ought to have granted back wages and attendant benefits and treated the removal period as on duty. 8. 8. While the petitioner was conducting bus service No.3084 on 04.04.2002 on the route from Armoor to Manthani, a check was conducted at Stage No.3 at about 20:00 hours. It was found that seven passengers were travelling without tickets from Pipri to Manthani and that the petitioner had closed the S.R. up to Stage No.3 without completing the issue of tickets. The checking officials collected a penalty of Rs.100/- from the ticketless passengers, issued a charge memo to the petitioner on the spot, and recorded the statements of the passengers. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings dated 16.08.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed departmental appeal and review and the same were rejected on 01.12.2002 and 12.08.2003 respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.52 of 2004 before the Labour Court and the same was allowed in part on 15.05.2006 by observing as follows :- “However, it is held in the above discussion that misappropriation and malafied intention is not involved in the involved irregularities. Therefore, the removal order is harsh and disproportionate to the involved irregularity. The management ought to have imposed lesser penalty to the proved charges 1 and 2.” In the result, the petition is allowed partly holding that the removal order is disproportionate to the irregularities involved. Accordingly, the removal order was set aside, and reinstatement of the petitioner into service was directed. However, it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to back wages or other attendant benefits, and that the continuity of service during the intervening period would be treated as “not on duty.” 9. As per the contention of the petitioner, the bus was overloaded with 108 passengers, though the capacity of the bus was only 60 passengers. Being a conductor, the petitioner is also a human being, and it is understandable that when the bus is overloaded to nearly double its capacity, it becomes difficult for him to move freely and collect fares or issue tickets to all passengers. This fact was not considered by the respondent authorities. Moreover, the petitioner neither issued tickets nor collected money from the passengers. The situation clearly discloses that due to heavy passengers load, he could not move freely to attend to all the passengers. 10. This fact was not considered by the respondent authorities. Moreover, the petitioner neither issued tickets nor collected money from the passengers. The situation clearly discloses that due to heavy passengers load, he could not move freely to attend to all the passengers. 10. Whenever the respondents impose punishment on their employees on the ground of cash and ticket irregularities, they are required to consider the number of passengers travelling in the bus. Based on such information, the authorities should arrive at a conclusion as to whether any irregularity occurred and whether it was intentional or accidental. No doubt, if the number of passengers are very less and the conductor fails to issue tickets or collect fares, such conduct would be illegal and improper. However, in the present case, without considering these aspects, the petitioner was removed from service merely on the ground that he failed to issue tickets to seven passengers. However, the Labour Court, considering the material available on record, modified the order of the disciplinary authority. 11. While modifying the order, the Tribunal did not grant back wages, other attendant benefits and continuity of service during the involved period and the same was treated as not on duty. Due to a natural mistake arising from an overloaded bus, the petitioner remained out of employment for nearly four years. The Labour Court ought to have considered the grant of back wages. Without any fault on his part, the petitioner suffered unemployment for four years. 12. With regard to back wages, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.31 of 2001, dated 29.10.2002, wherein it was observed as follows :- “It cannot be said that the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge to award 25% of the back-wages particularly in the fact situation of the case is perverse or unreasonable. The discretion exercised by the learned single Judge cannot lightly be interfered with by us. We are also of the considered opinion that since the petitioner is guilty or not collecting fare from only one passenger out of 61 passengers by in advertence, such a lapse does not warrant denial of the entire back wages. Therefore, the order made by the learned single Judge is just and reasonable.” 13. We are also of the considered opinion that since the petitioner is guilty or not collecting fare from only one passenger out of 61 passengers by in advertence, such a lapse does not warrant denial of the entire back wages. Therefore, the order made by the learned single Judge is just and reasonable.” 13. In the present case, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner and there was neither issuance of tickets nor receipt of money from the passengers. Moreover, the checking officials themselves collected Rs.100/- as penalty from the passengers. In these circumstances, the Labour Court ought to have considered granting of back wages atleast to some extent. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the award of the Labour Court requires modification to the extent of back wages. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to pay 25% of the back wages to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The remaining portion of the Labour Court’s Award shall remain unchanged. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.