THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.5857 OF 2003 Between:-
A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director and another.
…Petitioners.
And M.A. Ansari (died per LRs., RRs.3 to 8) and others.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.5857 OF 2003 ORDER:
Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The writ petition is filed, seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the award dated 20-08-2002 passed in I.D.No.209 of 2000 by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, where under, it set aside the order of removal dated 29-9-1995 passed against the first respondent and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and 75% of back wages and imposing lesser penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect.
The brief facts relevant for considering the writ petition may be stated as follows:- At the relevant time, the first respondent was working as Booking Clerk in APSRTC. Due to shortage of staff, he was entrusted with the job of Assistant Depot Clerk for issuing bus passes. The inspecting staff detected the irregularities committed by the first respondent in the matter of issuing bus passes and collecting money and submitted a report against him.
The following charges have been framed against the first respondent:-
i) For having misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,385-
00 while working in bus pass section from 1-6-1994 to till date of inspection which is serious misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.
ii) For having failed to inform the shortage of amount remitted of bus pass section and misappropriated which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.
The first respondent was asked to submit his explanation and he submitted an explanation stating that he was not aware of the hike in the price of bus passes and therefore he issued bus passes by collecting an amount of Rs.3/-
instead of collecting Rs.5/- from the persons concerned. He also submitted that he had no experience in issuing the bus passes as he was entrusted with new job and mistakenly he collected Rs.3/- from the bus pass holders instead of collecting Rs.5/- as he did not know about the hike in the price of bus passes. The said explanation was not accepted by the Department. In the mean while, he remitted an amount of Rs.3,385/- (Rupees three thousand, three hundred and eighty five only), which was the difference amount according to the inspection staff. The department being not satisfied with the explanation and also remittance of the difference amount, ordered a regular departmental enquiry. The first respondent took the same defence in the departmental enquiry. In the departmental enquiry, the inspection staff and some other employees were examined and Exs.M1 to M34 were marked. The enquiry officer found the first respondent guilty of the charges of misappropriation of Rs.3,385/- and submitted a report against him. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed punishment of removal from service. The first respondent preferred an appeal against the said order of removal, but the appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.209 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. The learned Tribunal recorded a specific finding that the enquiry held against the first respondent is valid and there were no procedural irregularities. The Tribunal also found that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority are right in arriving at the conclusion that the first respondent is guilty of misappropriation and also that the defence plea taken by the first respondent cannot be accepted. In spite of arriving at the said conclusion, the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, set aside the order of removal and imposed a punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect and directed reinstatement of the first respondent with 75% of back wages and continuity of service. The said award is questioned in the present writ petition.
It requires to be noticed that the learned Tribunal on reappraisal of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer, which are accepted by the disciplinary authority. However, the learned Tribunal took a view that the first respondent was entrusted with a duty with which he was not conversant and therefore, the mistake was occurred and on that ground, it took a lenient view. The fact however remains that the Tribunal was also of the view that the charges of misappropriation have been proved against the first respondent.
Pursuant to the award passed by the leaned Tribunal, the first respondent was reinstated into service in 2003 and continued in service till 2008 and thereafter he retired from service and subsequently expired on 3-2- 2011 and respondents 3 to 8 were brought on record as his legal representatives.
Since the first respondent was reinstated into services way back in the year 2003 by virtue of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, I am of the view that it is not proper to interfere with the order of reinstatement and also relating to continuity of service. But, in my considered view, the first respondent against whom the charge of misappropriation is proved, is not entitled for 75% of the back wages. Consequently, in this writ petition, the award passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to granting of 75% of back wages is set aside and rest of the award is confirmed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that during the pendency of the writ petition, the retirement benefits have not been paid either to the first respondent or to his legal representatives after his death. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to pay the retirement benefits to the respondents 3 to 8 for which the first respondent is entitled for as per the rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 13-06-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.5857 OF 2003 Date: 13-06-2014 Shr.