THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.4937 OF 2005 AND 3287 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.4937 OF 2005 Between:-
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nagarkurnool Depot, Mahabubnagar District.
…Petitioner.
And The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, rep.by its Presiding Officer and another.
…Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO.3287 OF 2006 Between:- Md.Fayaz Ali …Petitioner.
And The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, rep.by its Presiding Officer Chandravihar Building, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.4937 OF 2005 AND 3287 OF 2006
COMMON ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.3287 of 2006. There is no representation for the second respondent though the matter is posted under the caption “for orders”.
W.P.No.3287 of 2006 is filed by Mr.Md.Fayaz Ali, Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), who was removed from service. W.P.No.4937 of 2005 is filed by the APSRTC. For the sake of convenience, the conductor who was removed from service will be referred to as “the petitioner” and the Department is referred to as “the respondent”. Since these two writ petitions are filed against the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court III, Hyderabad, they are disposed of by the following common order:
The petitioner who was a conductor in APSRTC, while discharging his duty as conductor on the route Antharam to Kalwakurthy on 3-9-2000, a surprise check was conducted by the TTIs., at 2030 hours. According to the Department, in the check, it was detected that the petitioner inspite of collecting the requisite fare of Rs.4.50 Ps., each from a batch of seven passengers for a total amount of Rs.31.50 Ps., failed to issue tickets to them. It was also detected that the petitioner has closed the tray number of all denominations in the SR., up to Stage No.7 without completing the issuance of tickets.
The following charges were framed against the petitioner:-
1. “For having failed to observe the rule ‘Issue and Start’ which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”.
2. “For having failed to issue tickets to a batch of seven passengers in spite of collecting the requisite fare of Rs.4.50/- each, they have boarded the bus at Ithole and abound for Antharam ex-stages 5/6 to 8, which constitute misconduct under Reg.28(vi-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963”.
3. “For having already closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations in the S.R. up to stage No.7 without completing the correct ticket issues which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963”.
A charge memo was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his explanation stating interalia that he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid charges and his statement was obtained under threat and coercion.
Admittedly, the notice sent to the petitioner informing him to initiate the domestic enquiry was returned un- served and an ex parte enquiry was conducted against him. In the said ex parte enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved against the petitioner and thereafter, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner. The petitioner did not submit any explanation to the show cause notice and there upon the disciplinary authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service. Against the said order, the petitioner filed I.D.No.75 of 2002, which came to be disposed of by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court III, Hyderabad.
T h e Labour Court upon examining the entire material on record arrived at a conclusion that the checking officials pressurized the passengers as well as the petitioner to give statements according to their dictates and falsely implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid charges. T h e Labour Court observed that among the seven passengers who boarded the bus, there was a pregnant woman and the petitioner was trying to provide her a seat in the bus, in the meanwhile, the checking staff conducted a surprise check and there was no time for the petitioner to issue tickets to the passengers. The Labour Court was also of the view that as the enquiry was conducted without service of notice on the petitioner, it is illegal and basing on the said enquiry report, the petitioner cannot be removed from service. Accordingly, the Labour Court set aside the removal order dated 23-11-2001 passed against the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, but without any attendant benefits.
Against the said Award, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3287 of 2006 seeking attendant benefits and the Department filed W.P.No.4937 of 2005 seeking to set aside the Award.
As can be seen from the grounds in the writ petition filed by the Department, its contention is that the Labour Court erred in discarding the statements recorded in Exs.M2 and M2A and also erred in recording the finding that the petitioner as well as the passengers were under pressure to give statements. It is also contended by the Department that the Labour Court erred in holding that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the domestic enquiry. According to the respondent, the notices sent to the residential address of the petitioner were returned un-served on three occasions, but the petitioner received the enquiry report which was sent to the same residential address and the Labour Court failed to appreciate the said fact and the Labour Court ought to have held that the petitioner evaded the service of notice.
The Labour Court on reappraisal of the entire material available on record, recorded a specific finding that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the charges leveled against him. In the domestic enquiry, only an Inspecting Official was examined, but the passengers were not examined. There is no denial to the effect that the notices proposing to initiate enquiry against the petitioner were not served on the petitioner. As rightly held by the Labour Court, for non service of the notices on the petitioner, the enquiry conducted is against the principles of natural justice and basing on such enquiry report, the petitioner cannot be removed from service. When once the Labour Court found that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid charges, it ought not to have denied the attendant benefits to the petitioner. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court is modified, granting attendant benefits to the petitioner for which, he is entitled in the normal course.
Consequently, W.P.No.3287 of 2006 is allowed and W.P.No.4937 of 2005 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 23-04-2014.
Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.4937 OF 2005 AND 3287 OF 2006 Date: 23-04-2014 Shr.