IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THIS THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.2151/2006 & 25021/2004
W.P.No.2151/2006
Between: Md.Rafat . PETITIONER And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy District and 2 others . RESPONDENTS
W.P.No.25021/2004
Between:
The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajendranagar Depot, Rangareddy District . PETITIONER And Md.Rafat and another . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.2151/2006 & 25021/2004
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.2151/2006 is filed by the workman seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the award passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.60/2002, dated 15.06.2004 in so far as denying full back wages and attendant benefits.
W.P.No.25021/2004 is filed by the Management seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the award passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.60/2002, dated 15.06.2004 in so far as reinstating the workman into service.
Since both the writ petitions are directed against the one and the same award, they are disposed of by this common order.
The brief facts relevant for disposing of these two writ petitions may be stated as follows:
For the sake of convenience, the workman is hereby referred to as “the petitioner” and the APSRTC/Management is hereby referred to as “APSRTC”.
The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the APSRTC on 11.02.1999. It is alleged against him that on 07.07.2001 he failed to issue ticket to a passenger for which a charge sheet was issued to him and enquiry was conducted; it was found in the enquiry that the petitioner was guilty of the charge levelled against him and consequently, he was removed from service.
Questioning the removal order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.60/2002 on the file of the Labour Court-1, Hyderabad. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court upon considering the enquiry report and the material available on record held that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. However, observing that the punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and as the amount involved in the case is only Rs.2.50 ps which is trivial misconduct, the Labour Court passed the award directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service with 50% back wages.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Department believed the statement of a ticketless passenger who gave false statement in order to avoid fine and issued the charge sheet. The learned counsel further submits that the enquiry officer without conducting a detailed enquiry submitted a report mechanically holding the petitioner guilty for the charge levelled against him without there being any material evidence and following the same, the Depot Manager who is the disciplinary authority removed him from service without any independent assessment of the case. Nextly it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that as per Circular No.49 of 1980, dated 12.11.1980 which was issued enumerating the guidelines to be followed for imposition of punishment, the offences relating to cash and ticket irregularities were classified as A, B, C, D and the alleged offence in the instant case falls under category “D”. The learned counsel further submits that as the said offence is very second one in the service of the petitioner, the punishment prescribed in the aforesaid circular is deferment of increment by one stage with cumulative effect, but not removing the incumbent from service. The learned counsel further contended that the Labour Court having found that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate, ought to have ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service with full back wages with all consequential benefits. Contending as above, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to modify the impugned award passed by the Labour Court.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the APSRTC submits that the Labour Court after having found that the charge of cash and ticket irregularity was proved against the petitioner and also having found that there are no extenuating circumstances in favour of the petitioner, ought not to have come to the conclusion that removal of the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was caught red-handed on 07.07.2001, cash and ticket irregularity since being proved, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority. The learned counsel further contends that the Labour Court ought to have taken notice before ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into service that the petitioner was earlier inflicted with the punishment of two annual increments twice on the same charge of cash and ticket irregularity. The learned counsel contends that since the Labour Court concurred with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved, it ought not to have taken the view that the punishment is disproportionate and ought not to have ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service, and therefore, he sought to set aside the award of the Labour Court.
On the issue whether the charge has been proved against the petitioner, since there are concurrent findings recorded by the enquiry officer as well as the Labour Court, this Court is not supposed to indulge in reappraising the evidence for taking a different view. The only question remains to be considered is whether the award passed by the Labour Court is proper in so far it relates to the punishment.
The learned counsel appearing for the APSRTC relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in North West Karnataka Road Transport Corp. v. H.H.Pujar[1] in which a charge against the respondent was that he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers; the Corporation contended that earlier also on 12 occasions on similar charge punishments were awarded to the respondent, but the respondent did not improve his conduct. The Corporation could not be able to establish the previous conduct of the respondent by adducing any material. The Supreme Court held as follows:
“9. As rightly contended by the appellant since fairness of the proceedings was conceded and the respondent admitted that he had not issued tickets to 20 passengers, their non-examination is really of no consequence.
10 . In view of what has been stated by this Court in Rattan Singh’s case {1977(2) SCC 491} and in A.T.Mane’s case {2004(8) SCALE 308} award of the Labour Court and impugned order of the High Court cannot be maintained and are set aside. The order of dismissal passed by the Corporation is to operate.”
The facts of the above case are different from the facts of the case on hand.
In the instant case, the amount involved in relation to the cash and ticket irregularity is Rs.2.50 ps. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that a ticketless passenger gave a false statement in order to avoid fine and basing on the said false statement he was involved in the present case. Of course, the said explanation was not accepted by the enquiry officer and the Labour Court. It was alleged against the petitioner that earlier he was also involved in cash and ticket irregularities and a minor punishment was imposed against him. Considering all the aspects of the matter, the Labour Court rightly took the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate. However, having found that the petitioner was guilty of the charge levelled against him, I am of the view that the Labour Court ought not to have granted any back wages while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into service. Therefore, the award impugned in so far as reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without attendant benefits for the break period is confirmed. However, in so far as granting of 50% back wages, the award is set aside.
With the above modification of the award of the Labour Court, both the writ petitions are disposed of. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 28.04.2014 Dsr
[1] (2008) INSC 1176