BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-
CUM-VI ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.
Present: SMT.GVN.Bharatha Laxmi, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.
TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2022
I.D.No. 30 of 2018
Between:- Smt.V.Uma Rani, E-321144, Conductor, TSRTC, Korutla Depot, Aged 44 years, D/o.Mallaiah, R/o.Korutla of Jagtial District, filed through G.Komuraiah, Advocate, R/o.H.No.1-97, Padmanagar, Karimnagar. … Petitioner/Workman. A N D
1. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Korutla Depot.
2. The Divisional Manager, TSRTC, Jagtial.
3. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Karimnagar. … Respondents/Management.
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Komuraiah, Advocate for the Petitioner/Workman and of Sri.B.Veera Sundar, Junior Law Officer for the Respondents/Management; and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
-: A W A R D :-
1.This is a reference issued by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Warangal vide Proc.No.C/519/2018, dt.17.07.2018 for adjudication of the dispute under the following annexure:-
-: A N N E X U R E :-
“Whether the Divisional Manager, TSRTC, Jagtial is justified in imposing the punishment of reduction of seniority by one cycle of communal roaster points due to which her regularization was made on 01.07.02009 instead of 05.10.2007, vide proc.
No.PA/19(49)/2006-DVM JGTL, dt.01.08.2006 of the Divisional
Manager, TSRTC, Jagtial in respect of Smt. Uma Rani, E-321144,
Conductor.
If not, to what relief is the worker entitled to?”
2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:- 2(a).That the petitioner/workman i.e., V.Uma Rani, E-321144 was appointed as
Conductor in the Respondents/Corporation, while she was working on contract basis under Respondent No.1/Corporation on 11.01.2006 she was performing duty on bus bearing No.5770 on route Korutla-Yellareddypet a check was exercised by the checking officials of at stage No.4/3 at about 19.30 hours and 2 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
alleged that they found certain one passenger travelling in the bus of petitioner/workman having boarded at stage No.7 and bound to stage No.1.
Accordingly, the TTIs issued with a charge memo, dt.11.01.2006 with the above said allegation. The petitioner/workman has submitted her explanation within stipulated time stating that the said passenger under allegation cheated her and the organization stating that he is an employee of corporation and not as stated in spot explanation which was to the tune and dictation of TTIs. Basing on the report of TTIs, the Respondent No.1/Corporation while placing the petitioner/workman under put off duty (suspension) issued with a charge sheet, dt.23.01.2005 with the following charge.
CHARGES:-
1. For having failed to observe the rule “Issue & Start” which constitutes misconduct interms of item No.(XXXVI) of Cir.No.PD-03/2005, dt.25.01.2005.
2. For having failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger found travelling at stage No.4/3, who boarded your bus at Rudrangi and bound for Korutla Ex.Stages 07 to 01, which constitutes misconduct interms of item No.(VI) and (VIII)(a) of Cir.No.PD-03/2005, dt.25.01.2005.
3. For having already closed the ticket tray Nos. of all denominations upto stage No.4 without completing the above ticket issue, which constitutes misconduct under item No.(XXXVI) of Circular No.PD-03/2005, dt.25.01.2005.
2(b).Further, the petitioner/workman has submitted a factual explanation to the above charge sheet, further stated that she has been discharging her duties to the utmost satisfaction and to the objects of organization for the past seven (7) years, prayed exoneration from the charges. Besides the above, that the spot statement of passenger was also very specific that he has boarded the bus at
Rudrangi and bound to Korutla, the check was exercised on Kathalpur (stage
No.4/3) he has not paid for ticket fare and was not in possession of tickets. The
TTIs have collected money from him and paid to the conductor. Apart from that they have also imposed a penalty of Rs.100/- against him. The TTIs got recorded the statement on spot to their tune and dictation, against to the fact.
The fact is the said passenger, in fact stated he is a staff of RTC, thus he cheated the petitioner/workman and the organization. Therefore, from the above it is 3 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
evident, there was no ill intention or a motive to defraud the revenues of the corporation. Besides, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., of Judicature at Hyderabad vide its orders, dt.23.02.2006 in W.P.No.2041/2006 directed the respondent/ management to continue petitioner/workman in service and pay the applicable scale, while setting aside the put off duty orders of petitioner/workman. The enquiry officer has also as a matter of routine held the charges proved, holding the petitioner/workman guilty of charges beyond reasonable doubt. The
Respondent No.1/Depot Manager agreeing with the findings report of enquiry officer, without discussing the pros and cons of the charges. Further, he came to a conclusion that the petitioner/workman is not a profitable employee, deserves her name to be deleted from the selection list is fit and proper. Accordingly, ordered deleting the name of petitioner/workman from selection list vide Proc., dt.06.07.2006. Further, the petitioner/workman has submitted an appeal before
Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, TSRTC, Karimnagar/Respondent No.2, the appeal has been considered vide his proceedings, dt.01.08.2006 to the extent of following terms and conditions:-
1. Smt.V.Uma Rani, E.321144, Ex.Conductor shall be included in the selection list.
2. On restoration in the selection list her seniority shall be reduced by one cycle of communal roaster points.
3. She should pay security deposit afresh.
4. She should report to Regional Manager, Karimnagar for further posting within (7) days of receipt of this order failing which the order shall stand cancelled.
5. She shall be directed to medical examination by the Depot
Manager to whose unit she will be posted by Regional Manager,
Karimnagar and only if she is certified to be fit for A-1 category she shall be taken on duty.
6. She shall abide fulfill any other conditions imposed by the
Regional Manager, Karimnagar while posting her to another depot as per circular instructions in force.” 2(c).Then after, the petitioner/workman has gone with the revision petition
before the Regional Manager/Respondent No.3 and also recruiting authority also
the authority to maintain the panel of selected candidates for appointments.
Further, the revision petition has been rejected vide orders, dt.29.11.2006 without 4 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
going into merits and facts on record. Therefore, by inflicting the modified punishment, the petitioner/workman is put back to two (2) years in the seniority of conductors by regularizing her service w.e.f., 01.07.2009 as against 05.10.2007 along with her batch mates. Further, the petitioner/workman has submitted that she has been maintain clean record in her service for the past (6) years of her engaged in service by respondents/corporation, serving with all devotion to the organization with a hope and trust her services are regularized. Further, she has already suffered a loss of seniority, which itself is a sufficient punishment.
Hence, deserve restoration of her seniority and regularize at least notionally is an appropriate relief. Hence, the petitioner/workman prayed to set aside the impugned orders of Respondent No.2 with all consequential reliefs.
3.On the other side, the Respondents/corporation have filed rejoinder by denying all the averments except the employment of the petitioner/workman with the respondents/corporation and inter alia contended that on the date of exercising check by the TTIs while the petitioner/workman was performing duty, the TTIs detected certain cash and ticket irregularities committed by her, for which a charge memo had been issued to the petitioner/workman. Further, the petitioner/workman had failed to observe the rule issue and start. Further, the petitioner/workman had failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger found travelling at stage No.4/3, who boarded her bus at Rudrangi and bound for
Korutla ex.stages 07 to 01. Further, the petitioner/workman had already closed the ticket tray nos. of all denominations up to stage No.04 without completing the above ticket issue. Then after, the petitioner/workman has been issued with the charge sheet with the charges as contended by the petitioner/workman. Further, the petitioner/workman also submitted her explanation to the charge sheet. After perusal of the explanation, it is felt that the case needs a detailed enquiry, hence, the case was sent to the Asst. Manager (Enquiries), Regional Manager’s Office,
Karimnagar duly nominating him as an enquiry officer, dt.09.02.2006 to conduct a detailed enquiry into the case and to submit report. Accordingly, the Asst.
Manager (Enquiries), RM’s office, Karimnagar had conducted enquiry into the 5 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
case duly giving all the reasonable opportunities to the petitioner/workman to defend her case. The petitioner/workman herself satisfied and accepted with the manner of the enquiry with her attestation. Accordingly, the enquiry officer submitted his report, dt.03.06.2006 stating the charges are hold proved against the petitioner/workman. After perusal of enquiry report and other evidence available on record together with the circumstances of the case, the respondent/ corporation did not find any valid and justifiable reasons worth consideration.
Accordingly, the respondent/corporation has issued show cause notice for deletion of name from the selection list vide Proc., dt.28.06.2006. Further, the petitioner/workman acknowledged the same orders on 28.06.2006 and submitted her explanation to the show cause notice to the respondent/corporation on 06.07.2006. After perusal of explanation to the respondent/corporation not convinced and issued final order vide proc., dt.06.07.2006 for deletion of her name from selected list. The petitioner/workman acknowledged the same orders on 10.07.2006. Then after, the petitioner/workman preferred the appeal to the
Respondent No.2/Corporation. However, keeping in view the sentiment expressed by the Hon’ble High Court of AP at para No.1 in page 3 of the order in
WP.No.2041/2006, it is felt proper to dispose this appeal leniently. Accordingly,
the Respondent No.2/Corporation had modified the punishment in terms as contended by the petitioner/workman. Further, the review petition preferred by the petitioner/workman before the Respondent No.3/Corporation was rejected.
Further, the petitioner/workman filed this I.D., after a gap of 12 years before this
Tribunal. Therefore, after perusing the report of TTIs and evidences available on record together with the explanation, it was found that the irregularities committed by the petitioner/workman is a serious in nature and misconduct in terms of Cri.No.PD-03/05, dt.25.01.2005. Therefore, the modified order of
Respondent No.2/Corporation is liable to be sustained in view of the facts and circumstances.
6 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
4.In order to substantiate their claims, for the petitioner/workman Ex.W-1 to
Ex.W-8 are marked and for the Respondents/Corporation Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-31 were marked.
5.Arguments of the counsel for petitioner/workman as well as Junior Law
Officer for the respondents/corporation heard.
Now the point for consideration is whether the Divisional Manager,
TSRTC, Jagtial is justified in imposing the punishment of reduction of
seniority by one cycle of communal roaster points due to which her
regularization was made on 01.07.02009 instead of 05.10.2007, vide proc.
No.PA/19(49)/2006-DVM JGTL, dt.01.08.2006 of the Divisional Manager,
TSRTC, Jagtial in respect of Smt. Uma Rani, E-321144, Conductor.
If not, to what relief is the worker entitled to?”
P O I N T:-
6.From the pleadings of the petitioner/workman and Respondents/ corporation, these are the admitted facts that the petitioner/ workman is working as Conductor in Respondents-Corporation. Ex.M-1 is the STAR document, dt.11.01.2006. On 11.01.2006 the bus bearing No.5770 was supplied on route
Yellareddypet, which was performed by the petitioner/workman, a check was exercised by the TTIs at stage No.4/3 at about 19.30 hours and issued a charge memo, dt.11.01.2006 to the petitioner/workman under Ex.M-2 alleging that the petitioner/workman has committed certain serious cash and ticket irregularities.
Further, the TTIs have recorded the statement of passengers under Ex.M-3 and also recorded the statement of petitioner/workman under Ex.M-4. Ex.M-5 is the check sheet. Ex.M-6 is the top punch ticket. Ex.M-7 is the depot spare memo.
Further, the petitioner/workman has submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 17.01.2006 under Ex.M-8. Further, basing on the charge memo issued by TTIs, the Respondent No.1/Corporation has issued charge sheet, dt.23.01.2006 under Ex.M-10 and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner/ workman under Ex.M-12. Accordingly, the petitioner/workman has submitted his explanation to the charge sheet on 28.01.2006 under Ex.M-14. After perusal of the explanation the Respondent No.1/corporation felt that the case needs a 7 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
detailed enquiry and it was sent to the enquiry by nominating the Asst. Manager (T) (Enquiries), Karimnagar Depot to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit report, dt.09.02.2006 under Ex.M-15. Accordingly, the Asst. Manager, (T) (Enquiries), Karimnagar depot sent enquiry call letter to the petitioner/workman on 06.04.2006 under Ex.M-16. During enquiry, the enquiry officer has recorded the statement of Sri.G.Sudhakar on 15.04.2006 under Ex.M-17 and recorded the statement of petitioner/workman under Ex.M-18 and after completion of enquiry the enquiry officer has submitted his report under Ex.M-19 and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner/workman under Ex.M-22 and further, the petitioner/workman was called for the comments/objections of the petitioner/ workman with regard to enquiry report. Further, the petitioner/workman has submitted his comments/objections to the enquiry report on 13.06.2006 under
Ex.M-20. Basing on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and the explanation submitted by the petitioner/workman, the Respondent No.1/ corporation has provisionally came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner/workman are held proved for which a show cause notice was issued on the petitioner/workman, dt.28.06.2006 under Ex.M-24 and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner/workman on 29.06.2006 under
Ex.M.25 and submitted his explanation to the show cause notice to the
Respondent No.1/Corporation on 03.07.2006 under Ex.M-26. Accordingly, the
Respondent No.1/Depot Manager depot has issued final orders vide proceedings dt.06.07.2006 under Ex.M-27 and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner/workman on 10.07.2006 under Ex.M-28. Further, the petitioner/ workman has preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e., Divisional
Manager, Karimnagar Region/ Respondent No.2 and the same was partly considered vide proceedings, dt.01.08.2006 under Ex.M-29. Further, the petitioner/workman preferred review petition before the Respondent No.3 and the same was not considered vide proceedings, dt.29.11.2006 under Ex.M-30.
Ex.M-31 is the attested copy of service record of the petitioner/workman.
7.The learned counsel for petitioner/workman has argued that as a matter of fact the check was taken place at stage No.4/3 and the point of check there are 8 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
still to go three (3) stages to reach destination. Further, the said person boarded at stage No.7 and bound to stage No.1. All passengers on board were in possession of tickets, except the person under allegation. Further, the said person was in attire of a RTC mechanic, and also informed, the petitioner/ workman he is a mechanic of RTC. Further, the other fact is the petitioner/ workman issued tickets of Rs.3/- denomination E-1, Rs.11/- denomination, E-2 on stage No.7, there were altogether (27) passengers on stage No.7. Further, on stage No.4 also a ticket of Rs.6/- denomination issued. So, from the above fact, it is evident that there was no intention or motivation to defraud revenue of corporation. The TTIs also have admitted the above facts and collected fare, also a penalty from said passenger under allegation. So, in the above circumstances, no negligence or irregularities can be attributed to the petitioner/ workman. Hence, the punishment against the petitioner/workman is liable to the set aside.
8.On the other side, the learned Junior Law Officer for Respondents/
Corporation has argued in force that it is clear from the enquiry officer through his findings that as per the passenger statement, conductor spot explanation, TPT
No.321/431982 of Rs.11/- and all other evidences available on the record the petitioner/workman has failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to the passenger who boarded the bus at Rudrangi and bound for Korutla ex.stages 07 to 01. But the petitioner/workman failed to ensure that all the passengers are issued with tickets then has to close the STAR document. As per the discussions and on verification of STAR document the petitioner/workman had closed ticket tray numbers of all denominations up to stage No.04 without completing the issues to the passenger, thereby, the petitioner/workman failed to perform her duty.
Therefore, the evidence on record has crystal clearly established that the petitioner/workman failed to collect the fare and issue ticket to a passenger found travelling at stage No.4/3, who boarded your bus at Rudrangi and bound for
Korutla ex.stages 07 to 01 and also violated the rule of issue and start. Apart from that at the time of deletion of petitioner/workman name from the list in this 9 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
case, she was the contract employee and when her appeal was considered by the appellate authority to include her name in the list imposing punishment upon her is very less towards gravity of the case. Further, she also joined the duty without any objection intentionally. Therefore, there are no merits in the contention of the petitioner/workman. Thereby, the action taken by the
Respondent No.1 & 2/Corporation is appropriate and legally valid. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
8(a).Further, the learned Junior Law Officer for respondents/corporation has relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.5984/2000, dt.11.02.2003, between Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah and Hotilal and others, wherein their lordships held that:- “It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go in the decision making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are in built requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with matter leniently; misconduct in such cases has to dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts of fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable, judged in that back ground conclusions of the division bench of High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of learned single judge upholding the dismissal”.
9.In view of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner/ workman as well as learned Junior Law Officer for respondents/corporation, if we peruse the evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that on 11.01.2006 while the petitioner/workman operated the bus bearing No.5770 on route Yellareddypet to
Korutla, a check was exercised by the TTIs at stage No.4/3 at about 19.30 hours and found certain alleged cash and ticket irregularities. According to the contention of Respondents/corporation the petitioner/workman failed to collect fare and issued ticket to one passenger under the allegation who boarded the bus at Rudrangi and also closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations up 10 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
to the stage No.4 without completing the ticket issues. Thereby, the petitioner/workman committed serious misconduct. On the other side, the petitioner/workman has contended that the above said passenger under the allegation was in attire of RTC mechanic and also he informed that he is a mechanic of RTC. Hence, she believed him. Further, she has all together issued tickets to (27) passengers at stage No.7, which clarifies that she has no intention or motive to defraud the revenue of the corporation. If we peruse the statement of passenger under the allegation, it is clear that he boarded the bus at Rudrangi and bound for Korutla and he neither paid ticket fare nor obtained ticket.
However, the TTIs imposed penalty to the passenger for Rs.100/- and the same was also paid by the passenger. Apart from that whereas the petitioner/ workman stated in her explanation to the charge sheet that the ticket less passenger who boarded at Rudrangi informed that he is a RTC mechanic but at the time of checking, the ticket less passenger before the ticket officials has accepted his fault and paid his ticket fare and also paid excess fare as penalty for
Rs.100/-. To that extent during enquiry while cross examination by the petitioner/ workman the TTIs also stated that the passenger paid Rs.100/- as penalty and stated that the petitioner/workman has no fraudulent motive behind the above irregularity. Even if we believe the statement of the petitioner/workman for a while that the said ticket less passenger was in a attire of RTC mechanic and though he informed the petitioner/workman as he is a mechanic of RTC but it is the duty on the part of the petitioner/workman to ask for identity card of the said ticketless passenger for verification, for that the petitioner/workman nowhere alleged that she asked the ticketless passenger for identity card and verify the same in proof of his identity as a RTC mechanic or not. So, the conduct of the petitioner/workman that simply believing the person as a RTC mechanic and kept silent for not collecting the fare and issue ticket to the said ticketless passenger.
So, none verification of the identity card of the ticketless passenger and keeping silent is nothing but carelessness and negligence on the part of the petitioner/ workman. However, the fact as the TTIs have admitted the fact of collecting fare and also penalty shows that there is no intention or motive to defraud the 11 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
revenue of the corporation on the part of the petitioner/ workman in discharging her duties. Further, the petitioner/workman failed to ensure that all the passengers are issued with the tickets and then she has to close the STAR document but as per the above facts and circumstances on the verification of
STAR document, it is clear that the petitioner/workman had closed the ticket tray numbers of all denominations up to stage No.4 without completing the issues to the ticketless passenger. Thus, the petitioner/workman had violated the rule of issue and start. Accordingly, the evidence available on record has made clear that the petitioner/workman failed to collect the fare from the ticketless passenger and issued ticket who boarded the bus at Rudrangi and bound for Korutla and also closed the ticket tray without completing the ticket issues, hence, the petitioner/workman has violated the rule of issue and start. Thereby, the charges leveled against the petitioner/workman held proved. However, though the charges established against the petitioner/workman but there is no evidence to attribute that there is a intention or motive on the part of the petitioner/workman to defraud the revenue of the corporation as the TTIs themselves made the ticketless person failed to pay ticket fare and obtain ticket, in such circumstances, the modified punishment issued by the Respondent No.2/ Corporation shall be considered as excessive, unjust and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner/workman. Therefore, the punishment imposed by
Respondent No.2/ Corporation is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner/workman is entitled for restoration of her seniority for regularization at least notionally. However, the petitioner/workman is not entitled to all consequential relief which would be the sufficient punishment to the petitioner/ workman.
10.In the result, the reference is partly allowed. The punishment imposed by the 2nd Respondent/Divisional Manager vide Proc., dt.01.08.2006 under Ex.M-29 is hereby modified and the seniority of the petitioner/workman shall be restored to its original position and her services shall be regularized w.e.f., 05.10.2007 notionally along with her batch mates, instead of 01.07.2009. However, the other 12 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
conditions of paying security deposit afresh etc., holds good. Further, the petitioner/workman is not entitled to any arrears/back wages and notional increments. The petitioner/workman is entitled to consequential seniority benefits on modification of this punishment only from the date of publication of
Award. The Award shall come into force on expiry of (30) days from the date of its publication.
Dictated to Senior Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26th day of April, 2022.
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani.
13 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR WORKMAN:- FOR MANAGEMENT:- -Nil- -Nil-
E X H I B I T S
FOR WORKMAN:-
Ex.W-1Dt.06.07.2006Termination orders Ex.W-2Dt.01.08.2006Proceedings of appellate authority/R-2 Ex.W-3Dt.29.11.2006Revision petition rejected Ex.W-4Dt.18.10.2007Decasualization of conductors under the terms of Reg.17 of APSRTC Service Reg.1964. Ex.W-5Dt.21.07.2009Decasualization of conductors/petitioners in terms of Reg.17 of APSRTC service Regulation, 1964. Ex.W-6Dt.22.03.2006Instructions of RM, KRMR to continue in service of petitioner as per directions of Hon’ble High Court, A.P., in WPMP.No.20317/2005 in
WP.No.15986/2005.
Ex.W-7Dt.-07-2006Explanation to charge sheet Ex.W-8Dt.17.01.2006Explanation to charge memo by petitioner.
FOR MANAGEMENT:-
Ex.M-1Dt.11.01.2006TSRTC Statistical and Ticket Accountal Ex.M-2Dt.11.01.2006Charge memo Ex.M-3Dt.11.01.2006Passengers statement Ex.M-4Dt.11.01.2006Conductor statement Ex.M-5Dt.11.01.2006Check sheet Ex.M-6Dt.--TPT tickets Ex.M-7Dt.13.01.2006Depot spare memo Ex.M-8Dt.17.01.2006Explanation to the charge memo Ex.M-9Dt.23.01.2006Put off duty Ex.M-10Dt.23.01.2006Charge sheet Ex.M-11Dt.24.01.2006Ack., of put off duty Ex.M-12Dt.24.01.2006Ack., of charge sheet Ex.M-13Dt.28.01.2006Representation of the petitioner for obtaining true copies of the case Ex.M-14Dt.28.01.2006Explanation to the charge sheet Ex.M-15Dt.09.02.2006Nomination of enquiry officer Ex.M-16Dt.06.04.2006Enquiry call letter Ex.M-17Dt.15.04.2006Enquiry statement of Sri.G.Sudhakar Ex.M-18Dt.15.04.2006Enquiry statement of Smt.Uma Rani Ex.M-19Dt.03.06.2006Enquiry finding submitted by enquiry officer Ex.M-20Dt.13.06.2006Comments/objections Ex.M-21Dt.19.06.2006Representation of the petitioner Ex.M-22Dt.20.06.2006Ack., of enquiry findings Ex.M-23Dt.21.06.2006Explanation to the comments/objections Ex.M-24Dt.28.06.2006Show cause notice Ex.M-25Dt.29.06.2006Ack., of show cause notice Ex.M-26Dt.03.07.2006Explanation to the show cause notice Ex.M-27Dt.06.07.2006Proceedings of the deletion of name from the selection list Ex.M-28Dt.10.07.2006Ack., of proceedings of deletion of name from the selection list Ex.M-29Dt.01.08.2006Proceedings of the Divisional Manager Ex.M-30Dt.29.11.2006Proceeding of the Review Authority Ex.M-31Dt.--Attested copy of service record of the petitioner 14 I.D.No.30 of 2018.
Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani.