HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.A. No. 94 of 2014 DATE: 24.01.2014 Between:
1. The Managing Director
2. The Depot Manager .. Appellants And
1. Mutyala Venkateswara Rao
2. The Indu Tribunal-cum-Labour Court .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 08.10.2013 in W.P. No. 25440 of 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge ordering reinstatement of the 1st respondent with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages.
The 1st respondent – workman was a Conductor attached to Narsipatnam Depot. On 18.09.2003, during the course of his duty, certain charges were framed against him with respect to financial irregularities of not issuing tickets to the passengers and not accounting for the same. The details of which are not necessary for the purpose of this appeal, but suffice it to say that the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges framed against him. He was removed from service on 26.05.2004 in pursuance of the domestic enquiry and the same was confirmed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on challenge by the 1st respondent-workman in I.D.No. 81 of 2004. The award confirming both the findings of the enquiry officer and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, was challenged before the learned Single Judge. Charge No.1 is violation of Rule of “issue and start”. It is not in dispute that the passengers, who are said to have given statements, were not examined in the domestic enquiry but their statements were relied on for the purpose of coming to the conclusion. Considering the gravity of the charges particularly Charge Nos.1 and 3 being minor proved against the 1st respondent - workman and the meager amounts involved, the learned Single Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Except repeating the arguments which were advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. before the learned Single Judge, nothing new has been stated before us.
In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge granting reinstatement of the 1st respondent – workman into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits while taking care not to award back wages.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
G. CHANDRAIAH, J 24.01.2014
bcj
RAM,J CHALLA KODANDA