THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16148 OF 2001 Between:- A.Satyanarayana.
…Petitioner And APSRTC, rep.by its Depot Manager, Jangareddygudem Bus Depot, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District and another.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16148 OF 2001 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-APSRTC.
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari on the ground that the Labour Court after reinstating the petitioner into service denied the continuity of service and back wages to the petitioner which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with full back wages and other attendant benefits.
The brief facts stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) on 25-6- 1976 and since then, he has been discharging his duties sincerely without any complaints against him at any time. On 15-3-1997, the first respondent issued charge sheet alleging that the petitioner committed certain cash and ticket irregularities.
The petitioner was directed to conduct bus service in connection with a Jathara from 6th March, 1997 to 9th March, 1997. The petitioner was kept on continuous duty for 48 hours and he discharged the duties from 6th March, 1997 to 8th March, 1997. While he was on duty as conductor of the bus on 8th March, 1997, the TTIs., made a surprise check of the bus at 1.00 AM., and found that a batch of 21 passengers were not having tickets, but they were possessing only the tickets relating to the previous trip. It was also found that out of 21 passengers, four or five passengers were in a drunken stage and they showed the tickets relating to the previous trip.
According to the petitioner, in spite of his request to check the cash, the raiding party did not check the cash and booked a case for not issuing tickets after having collected requisite fare and closing the SR., of all denominations up to Stage No.9 without tallying the SR., with passengers in the service vehicle.
For the aforesaid charges, a domestic enquiry was conducted, in the course of which, the officials of the Department who are the TTIs., were examined and no independent witness was examined. The enquiry officer however held that the charges were proved against the petitioner. On receiving the enquiry report and after issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of removal from service against the petitioner and against which, the petitioner filed I.D.No.222 of 1998 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. T h e L a b o u r Court concurred with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, but expressed the view that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Having taken such a view, the learned Labour Court expressed the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is too harsh and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages and without continuity of service. Against which, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The first respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner was removed from service after giving full and fair opportunity and after conducting the enquiry. The petitioner filed I.D.No.222 of 1998 before the Labour Court of Guntur District and the Presiding Officer after considering the entire evidence on record, directed the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh conductor without back wages and without continuity of service and the petitioner is not entitled for any other relief and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Having gone through the award passed by the learned Tribunal, which concurred with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, I am of the view that in so far as the Tribunal’s decision on the point that the enquiry officer rightly held that the charges were proved against the petitioner, it is not possible to take any different view.
The only question remains to be considered is; whether the petitioner can be granted the relief of continuity of service.
This issue has to be decided with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the instant case, the witnesses examined on behalf of the Department admitted that they have not checked the cash. They also admitted that the cash was not verified even though the petitioner requested them to verify the cash. Admittedly, the petitioner was conducting the bus on Jathara days of Pattiseema and the 21 passengers showed the unconnected tickets to the inspecting staff. The fact that the petitioner rendered unblemished service is not disputed by the department. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be granted back wages, but he can be granted the relief of continuity of service for calculating the pensionary benefits.
The order passed by the Labour Court, Guntur District is therefore modified and the petitioner shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service for calculating the pensionary benefits only, without any other monitory benefits and without back wages.
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 24-04-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16148 OF 2001 Date: 24-04-2014 Shr.