K.Lalitha kumari

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. K.Lalitha Kumari, Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

TUESDAY THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

I.D.No.72/2017 Between:

G.V.Ramana @ G.Venkata Ramana, S/o Yerrappa, Aged 49 years, Ex.RTC Driver, E.No.508058, Kotta Street, CHEMBAKUR, Punganur, Chittoor District.….Petitioner/Workman

AND

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kuppam Depot, Chittoor District. …. Respondent/Management

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondent and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 18-2-2019 before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri S.Chandrsekhara, Law Officer of the Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) Challenging the validity of the removal order that was passed by the

Respondent by way of removal order Proceedings No.M1/1(1)/17-KPM dated 19- 4-2017 seeking the Court to set aside the removal order and to direct the

Respondent to reinstate him into service with continuity of service with full back-wages and with all attendant benefits and to grant such other relief as the

Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice. The Petitioner in the capacity of a Workman approached the Court by invoking section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2) The brief averments in the Claim Petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Respondent Corporation in the year 1989, the services of the Petitioner were regularized in the year 1991. Since the date of joining the Petitioner was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly, continuously and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors.

3) While so, a charge sheet was issued on 3-1-2017 to the Petitioner by

Depot Manager, Kuppam depot Chittoor district with the following charge;

CHARGE :

2 “For having absented for your duties from 31-12-2016 to 2-1- 2017 without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave from your superiors, which caused much hardship to operate the vehicles besides loss of revenues to the Corporation, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”

4) The charge leveled against the Petitioner is false and baseless. The

Petitioner on 29-12-2016 obtained leave in view of the death of Petitioner’s

Sister-in-law and the same was informed to the authorities by phone requested to grant leave. The Petitioner carried the dead body to the funeral grounds along with the others as it is custom not to go out-side for three days those who carried the dead body as the Petitioner attended for the funerals could not attend duties on 31-12-2016. Under these circumstances the Petitioner could not attend to duties, the Petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet. The charges leveled against the Petitioner are baseless.

5) The Petitioner gave a complaint against Assistant Manager (T) Kuppam

dated 20-7-2016 with regard to ill-treatment and abuse made by the Assistant

Manager (T), an enquiry was pending against the said Assistant Manager (T).

The said Assistant Manager has also threatened the Petitioner and also targeted the Petitioner. A notice was issued by the Enquiry Officer to attend the Enquiry.

6) Though the Petitioner was not on fault, a farce enquiry was conducted a show cause notice of removal dated 18-1-2017 was issued, the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 19-1-2017. Having satisfied with the explanation the Petitioner was allowed to conduct duties. Subsequently the Petitioner fell ill on 10-4-2017 the Petitioner was advised to undergo treatment. The Respondent served the order on 19-4-2017 by removing the Petitioner from services. The said enquiry is illegal and invalid. The Enquiry officer failed to take into consideration of the material on record, the Depot Manager without seeing the material on record with predetermined mind closed the enquiry and passed the order. The said enquiry is invalid and arbitrary. The punishment of removal is inhuman unfair labour practice. The removal order is liable to be set aside. The

Petitioner prays the Court to reinstate him into service with continuity of service with full back-wages with all other attendant benefits. The Petitioner is a poor man surviving with wife and four children. The Petitioner has no other source of income except the job, the Petitioner inspite of his best efforts could not secure any alternative employment. The Petitioner prays the Court to set aside the removal order and the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.M1/1(1)/17-

KPM dated 19-4-2017 is illegal, invalid and direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back-wages with all other attendant benefits and to grant any such other relief which deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice.

3

7) The Respondent filed counter, the contention of the Respondent is that the Petitioner was appointed as a casual driver in the Corporation on 6-4-1990 and subsequently regularized with effect from 1-8-1991. Amounts were recovered from the salary of the Petitioner for about 21 times in his service and his annual increments were deferred for 16 times in his service in different cases. He was censured for 16 times in his service. He was removed three times in his service i.e., on (1) dt.12-10-2000 for absenteeism case and as a measure of punishment his annual increments were deferred for a period of two years with cumulative effect on 21-3-2001. (2) The Petitioner was removed from his service on 9-3-2005 in absenteeism case there after the Petitioner reinstated by the Labour Court, Aantapuramu in I.D.No.249/2007 dt.13-4-2011 and as a measure of punishment annual increment was deferred for a period of two years with cumulative effect. (3) The Petitioner was removed from service on 19-4- 2017 on absenteeism case i.e., present case.

8) The Petitioner has absented to his duties unauthorisedly from 31-12- 2016 to 2-1-2017 without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave from his immediate supervisor which caused much inconvenience to the traffic supervisor in operating the services punctually, thus caused inconvenience to the travelling public and loss of revenue to the Corporation. On that a charge sheet was issued on 3-1-2017 with following charge; “For having absented for your duties from 31-12-2016 to 2-1-2017 without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave from your superiors, which caused much hardship to operate the vehicles besides loss of revenues to the Corporation, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”

9) All relevant documents, charge sheet was supplied to the Petitioner and the same were acknowledged by him and Petitioner submitted his explanation on 5-1-2017 and the case was entrusted to Assistant Manager (T),

Kuppam for conducting enquiry.

10) During the enquiry statements of concerned were recorded in the presence of the Petitioner, the Petitioner availed opportunity of cross examining the witnesses. The Petitioner also offered his statement during the enquiry. A fair enquiry was conducted in accordance with the C.C & A regulations by duly following the procedure, on the basis of evidence available on record, the report was submitted holding that the charges leveled against the Petitioner are proved.

11) The Respondent authority has called for the objections of the

Petitioner under vide letter dated 10-1-2017 and the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 12-1-2017. The Respondent came to a provisional conclusion that the charges leveled against the Petitioner was held proved, on that the

Petitioner was removed from the services as a measure of punishment.

Accordingly show cause notice of removal dt.18-1-2017 was issued and the 4

Petitioner acknowledged the same. The Petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 19-1-2017. The Respondent got issued final order of removal under proceedings No.M1/1(1)/2017-KPM dt.19-4-2017. The Petitioner unauthorisedly absented to his duties from 31-12-2016 to 2-1-2017 without obtaining prior permission or sanction from his immediate superiors and not produced sick certificate which causes much inconvenience to the Corporation as well as travelling public.

12) The Disciplinary authority has rightly taken the decision. The action taken by the authority is just and legal. The punishment is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by the Petitioner. The Respondent prays the court to up hold the action taken by the Respondent and not to grant any relief to the Workman and dismiss the I.D in the interest of the justice.

13) During the course of the proceedings a Memo was filed on 13-12-2018 by the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner not question the validity of domestic enquiry procedurally and to reappraise the evidence on record and to adjudicate the dispute. Memo was recorded no oral evidence adduced by both parties.

14)Reported no oral evidence on behalf of the Petitioner and

Respondent. The Petitioner got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-10 and Respondent got marked Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-11.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1.Ex.W-1 Dt.27-12-2016Copy of complaint given by the Petitioner against the Assistant Manager (T).

2.Ex.W-2Dt.15-3-2017Copy of the letter.

3.Ex.W-3Dt.-Copy of the statement of the Petitioner.

4.Ex.W-4Dt.10-4-2017Copy of sick certificate issued by the RTC Doctor.

5.Ex.W-5Dt.18-4-2017Copies of medical certificates.

6.Ex.W-6Dt.-Copy of Medical prescriptions.

7.Ex.W-7Dt.-Fit certificates issued by the APSRTC Dispensary.

8.Ex.W-8Dt.-Fit certificates issued by the APSRTC Dispensary.

9.Ex.W-9Dt.19-4-2017Copy of proceedings issued by the Depot Manager, Kuppam.

10.Ex.W-10Dt.-Pay slips for the months of January & February 2017

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.2-1-2017Report of the TI-III of Kuppam depot.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.3-1-2017Charge sheet.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.5-1-2017Explanation of the Petitioner.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.7-1-2017Allotment of Enquiry officer.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.9-1-2017Domestic enquiry report.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.10-1-2017Objections called for enquiry.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.12-1-2017Objections submitted by the Petitioner.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.18-1-2017Show cause notice of removal from service.

5

9)Ex.M-9Dt.19-1-2017Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

10) Ex.M-10Dt.19-4-2017Report of the TI-III of Kuppam depot.

11) Ex.M-11Dt.19-4-2017ProceedingsoftheDisciplinary Authority.

15)Heard on both sides and perused relevant records.

Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the Petitioner is found guilty for the charges leveled against him?

2. Whether the order of removal of the Petitioner from services is valid and justified?

3. Whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is perverse or is disproportionate to the charges proved?

They are interrelated and I deal with them together.

POINTS 1 to 3 :

16)It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was appointed as causal driver on 6-4-1990 and regularized w.e.f 1-8-1991. As the Petitioner failed to attend the duties from 31-12-2016 to 2-1-2017 a report was submitted to the Assistant

Manager (T), Kuppam Depot under Ex.M-1 to the superiors. Basing on a report a charge sheet was issued and served to the Petitioner. Ex.M-2 is the charge sheet and Ex.M-3 is the explanation given by the Petitioner dt.5-1-2017. There after an enquiry was ordered, enquiry officer conducted enquiry after serving the notice to the Petitioner and submitted the report on 9-1-2017 under Ex.M-5 observing that the charge leveled against the Petitioner was proved. Finally, a show cause notice was issued for removal of the Petitioner from service under

Ex.M-8. Petitioner submitted the explanation under Ex.M-9, finally the disciplinary authority issued proceedings under Ex.M-11 and the same was served on the Petitioner. Then the Petitioner approached this Court under

Section 2-A 2 I.D Act questioning the validity of the enquiry stating that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is arbitrary, illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

17) The Respondent contended in the Counter that the Petitioner due to his unauthorized absence without prior permission causing much inconvenience to the Corporation as well as to the public by way of unauthorized absence which amounts to misconduct, on that the Corporation rightly removed the

Petitioner from the services. Now it has to be seen that whether the Petitioner found guilty for the charge leveled against him.

18)In a decision reported in Bijlani vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 wherein it was held:

"It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is

limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-

criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the

6

charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding

are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond

all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the

enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon

analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that

there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the

charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he

cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot

refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the

burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of

the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the

delinquent officer had not been charged with."

19)The Petitioner has been removed from service on the charge of having remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. Absence from duty is by itself a misconduct. In a case Nathu Ram Saini v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.

And Anr. Reported in 1995(1) LLJ 421 has held that absence from duty is itself a misconduct.

In State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla [11] the Court, dealing with unauthorized absence, has stated thus: - “Unauthorised absence (or overstaying leave), is an act of indiscipline. Whenever there is an unauthorized absence by an employee, two courses are open to the employer. The first is to condone the unauthorized absence by accepting the explanation and sanctioning leave for the period of the unauthorized absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned. The second is to treat the unauthorized absence as a misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment for the misconduct.”

20)The learned Law Officer who is representing the Respondent contended that the Petitioner failed to attend the duties and he failed to take any prior permission or leave for his absence and caused inconvenience to the

Corporation and also to the public and it amounts to misconduct as per regulations of the Corporation and that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and confirmed by the appellate and review authorities is valid and justified and the punishment of removal of services of the Petitioner is proportionate to the charge leveled against the Petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Respondent.

21) The learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner failed to attend for duties as his Sister-in-law died on 29-12-2016, he informed the same to the authorities by phone and sought for three days leave on that the authorities informed him that he was posted on duty on 31-12-2016 but instead of attending duties he did not attended his works up to 2-1-2017. The contention of the Petitioner is that he already informed the same to the authorities but the same was not considered by the authorities. The explanation given by the Petitioner was received by the authorities and the Petitioner was 7 allowed to attend the duties but the enquiry was ordered and notice was issued to the Petitioner.

22) The Petitioner contended that he made a complaint against the

Assistant Manager and the Assistant Manager threatened him and he targeted the petitioner on that a farce enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was removed from service. The Petitioner filed Ex.W-1 i.e., copy of complaint and

Ex.W-2 notice served by the department relating to the complaint date 27-12- 2016. The other documents Ex.W-4, Ex.W-5 and Ex.W-6, Ex.W-7 relating to the sick certificate and fitness certificate, medical prescriptions relating to the petitioner as he obtained leave due to his ill-health. The above said documents are not at all relevant to the present case and Ex.W-9 the proceedings issued by the Respondent date 19-4-2017 by removing the Petitioner from service. As the

Petitioner contended to reappraise the enquiry report but the documents filed by the Petitioner no way helpful to the Petitioner. But the statements recorded by the Enquiry officer in Ex.W-3 which is clear of the reasons for absence of the

Petitioner due to the death of his Sister-in-law.

23) During the course of enquiry, Enquiry Officer examined the Petitioner and other officials and Petitioner stated that due to the death of his sister-in-law he could not attend the duties. The enquiry officer recorded the statements, basing on the statements recorded, he came to the conclusion that the

Petitioner failed to attend the duties and the explanation offered by the

Petitioner was not satisfactory and his sudden absence caused much hardship to the traffic supervisors in operating the services and also much inconvenience to the public and loss of revenue to the Corporation. Finally the enquiry officer found that Petitioner was guilty for the charge leveled against him.

24) Admittedly from the evidence of Petitioner before the Enquiry officer, it is clear that he did not obtain any prior permission from the authorities about his absence. He was absent from 31-12-2016 to 2-1-2017.

25) From the records, it is clear that the absence of the Petitioner caused much hardship to the traffic supervisors to arrange alternative Driver in place of the Petitioner and services were dislocated, much inconvenience was caused to the public.

26) The conduct and attitude of the Petitioner appears to have been extremely and cavalier. An employee must take his duty seriously. He cannot take his employment for granted. He must follow the rules and regulations of the employer. He must conduct himself in a disciplined manner. He must perform his duties with responsibility. An employee should adhere to discipline not only for personal excellence but also for the collective good of the organization which he serves. An employee/Workman who absents himself from duty without obtaining leave and does not think it necessary to send even one 8 intimation to the employer, during such period of absence, deserves no sympathy. Any kind of leniency or indulgence shown to such employee would send a wrong signal to the other employees of the organization which will be detrimental to the interest of all concerned.

27) In the present case, from the record and enquiry report, it is clear that the Petitioner failed to report for duties and he failed to intimate to the authorities in advance and failed to obtain any leave. The Petitioner did not explain as to what prevented him to intimate to the authorities in advance or within reasonable time about his absence from duties. The explanation offered by the Petitioner is not satisfactory. The enquiry officer has rightly came to the conclusion and found the Petitioner guilty for the charges leveled against him. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry officer and confirmed by the appellate authority. The said finding is valid and justified.

28) The learned advocate for the Workman further relied upon the decision reportedin 2008-II-LLJ-625 (SC), Pepsu Road Transport

Corporation Versus Rawel Singh wherein it was observed that dismissal of

Workman for absence of few days to be excessive punishment.

19) The learned advocate for the Petitioner further relied upon the decision reported in;

Syed Zaheer Hussain Vs. Union of India and others, 1991 1 LLJ

876, wherein the Workman failed to attend to his duties and after conducting departmental enquiry, he was removed from service. In that connection it was observed that the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and the contrary it is required to be substituted by appropriate lesser punishment. By observing the same the Respondents therein were directed to reinstate the

Workman into service with continuity and with all other benefits.

29) Learned Law Officer submitted that as per records the present

Workman was suspended on three occasions for absenteeism and he was removed from service and reinstated as per orders in I.D.No.249/2007 dated 13-4-2011. Previous conduct of the present Workman is to be taken into consideration while dealing with the subject whether the punishment imposed on the present Workman is proportionate to the charges leveled against the

Workman. The learned advocate for the Petitioner contended that the past conduct cannot be taken into consideration.

In the Depot Manager APSRTC, Charminar Depot Vs. K.Jelman

Reddy wherein it was observed that past conduct cannot be taken into consideration unless the question of past conduct was an integral part of the charge.

In P.Muni Raju Vs the Honourable Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court and another in W.P.No.6869 of 2004 wherein the Workman was 9 removed from service on the charges issued and start. In that connection by taking into consideration of the past conduct, the Labour Court dismissed the petition. In that connection it was observed that the past conduct of the

Workman cannot be taken into consideration while awarding punishment unless the past conduct is part of the charge leveled against the Workman.

In M.Muralai Krishna Vs. APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another in W.A.No.769 of 2005 wherein the Workman was removed from service on the ground of his unauthorized absence. In that case the period of absence was considered without framing any charge. In that connection it was observed that by taking into consideration the unauthorized absence for the said period without any charge or any enquiry amounts to depriving the opportunity of the delinquent to defend his case and it also amounts to arbitrariness.

2003 (3) ALT 96 N.Bala Krishna Vs. Security Officer, APSRTC,

Hyderabad zone and others wherein the Workman was removed from service without accepting the medical certificates produced by him. In that connection it was observed that the said punishment was not valid and justified and further observed that; “However, since the Petitioner was not on duty by virtue of the removal order and did not discharge any functions, he is not entitled to any back wages, but since his absence was genuine, as observed earlier, he is entitled to the notional increments. Therefore, the Respondents are directed to calculate the arrears of pay to which the Petitioner is entitled to from the date of joining duty, as per the order of the appellate authoritydt.26-6-1995, till today and pay the same , within period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.

30) In a decision reported in W.P.No.2891/2010 of Honourable High

Court of A.P wherein it was observed that it was well settled law that a misconduct which could not form part of charge and enquiry, cannot be considered for the purpose of inflicting punishment. The said principle is also approved by the division bench of Honourable High Court in the judgment in

W.A.No.769/2005. By observing the same directed the Respondents therein to reinstate the Petitioner therein into service with continuity of service, but without any attendant benefits and back-wages.

31)So far as the doctrine of proportionality is concerned, there is no gainsaying that the said doctrine has not only arrived at in our legal system but has come to stay. With the rapid growth of Administrative Law and the need and necessity to control possible abuse of discretionary powers by various administrative authorities, certain principles have been evolved by Courts. If an action taken by any authority is contrary to law, improper, unreasonable, irrational or otherwise unreasonable, a Court of Law can interfere with such action by exercising power of judicial review. One of such modes of exercising power, known to law is the ‘doctrine of proportionality’. ‘Proportionality’ is a principle where the Court is concerned with the process, method or manner in 10 which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities, reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision-making consists in the attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case.

The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exercise-the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities. The order of dismissal from service holding that the same was harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation-vs.-Rawel Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the dismissal of the concerned Workman on the ground of absence for few days was grossly disproportionate and excessively high. The Supreme Court upheld the award of the Labour Court to the extent the same directed reinstatement of the employee but modified the award by denying back wages to the employee.

In Bhagwan Lal Arya-vs.-Commissioner of Police, Delhi (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court interpreted Rules 8(a) and 10 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 and

observed that the said two Rules provide that the penalty of

removal from service can be imposed only in cases of grave

misconduct and continued misconduct indicating incorrigibility

and complete unfitness for police service. However, the

absence of the appellant for two months and eight days on

medical ground with application for leave could not be termed

as grave misconduct so as to render him unfit for police

service and hence, the punishment was totally

disproportionate to the proved misconduct of the appellant.

The order of dismissal was accordingly set aside.

In Mahinder Dutt Sharma-vs.-Union of India (11 April, 1947),

the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering Rule 41(1), proviso of

the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which

provided for compassionate allowance to dismissed/removed

employees. In that connection, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that absenteeism was not an act of moral turpitude

or of dishonesty or an act designed to make illegitimate gains

from the employer or an act directed to harm a third party.

Hence, the concerned employee was entitled to be considered

in a compassionate manner.

32)In the case of Chairperson-cum-Managing Director, Coal India

Limited and Another Vs. Mulul Kumar Choudhuri and Others 2009 (15)

SCC 620, wherein it has been held that the extreme punishment of removal from service in certain circumstances is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:- 11 “In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized absence from duty for six months but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have any intention nor desired to disobey the order of higher authority or violate any of the Company’s Rules and Regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be justified, since in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances. The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations”.

Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organization. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a passage from Government of India and another v.

George Philip[18]: - “In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty, granting six months’ time to join duty amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of the work culture in the organization. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the

Constitution have the tendency to negate or destroy the same.”

33)Taking into consideration of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, it can be safely be held that the punishment of removal of the

Petitioner from services is not valid and justified and the said punishment is not proportionate to the charges leveled against the Workman. In the circumstances of the case and for the above reasons I hold that the punishment of removal of the Petitioner from service is harsh and same is liable to be set aside.

34) Now comes to the question as to whether the Petitioner must be reinstated into service without any conditions. The charge of unauthorized absence was framed against him. It is not difficult to imagine the inconvenience to the Corporation as well as the travelling public, on account of unauthorized absence of the Petitioner. Many a time the services have to be cancelled or 12 recalled. That would not only result in loss of revenue to the Corporation but also a serious hardship to the travelling public.

35) As a measure of punishment, the two increments of the Petitioner-

Workman shall be deferred without cumulative effect for a period of two years by setting aside the order of removal of the Petitioner from service. I am of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the Workman is directed to be reinstated by denying him the benefit of back-wages as well as any continuity of service for the period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement, except for the limited purpose of determining the retirement benefits. Hence, the claim is allowed, setting aside the order dated 19-4-2017 passed by the Respondent, subject to the condition that the two increments of the Petitioner-Workman shall be deferred without cumulative effect for a period of two years and the Workman shall be reinstated into service without back- wages (On principle of no work and no pay) and attendant benefits. However, he shall be entitled to count the service for the limited purpose of calculating the retirement benefits. Accordingly Award is passed. Hence I answered the points.

In the result, the proceedings No.M1/1(1)/17-KPM dated 19-4-2017 by the

Respondent is set aside subject to the condition that the two increments of the

Petitioner-Workman shall be deferred without cumulative effect for a period of two years and the Workman shall be reinstate into service without back-wages (On principle of no work and no pay) and attendant benefits. However, he shall be entitled to count the service for the limited purpose of calculating the retirement benefits.

Accordingly Award is passed.

Typed to my dictation on the Computer system by the incharge Steno- Typist corrected and pronounced by me on this the 26th day of February, 2018.

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

1.Ex.W-1 Dt.27-12-2016Copy of complaint given by the Petitioner against the Assistant Manager (T).

2.Ex.W-2Dt.15-3-2017Copy of the letter.

3.Ex.W-3Dt.-Copy of the statement of the Petitioner.

4.Ex.W-4Dt.10-4-2017Copy of sick certificate issued by the 13

RTC Doctor.

5.Ex.W-5Dt.18-4-2017Copies of medical certificates.

6.Ex.W-6Dt.-Copy of Medical prescriptions.

7.Ex.W-7Dt.-Fit certificates issued by the APSRTC Dispensary.

8.Ex.W-8Dt.-Fit certificates issued by the APSRTC Dispensary.

9.Ex.W-9Dt.19-4-2017Copy of proceedings issued by the Depot Manager, Kuppam.

10.Ex.W-10Dt.-Pay slips for the months of January & February 2017

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.2-1-2017Report of the TI-Iii of Kuppam depot.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.3-1-2017Charge sheet.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.5-1-2017Explanation of the Petitioner.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.7-1-2017Allotment of Enquiry officer.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.9-1-2017Domestic enquiry report.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.10-1-2017Objections called for enquiry.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.12-1-2017Objections submitted by the Petitioner.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.18-1-2017Show cause notice of removal from service.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.19-1-2017Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.19-4-2017Report of the TI-III of Kuppam depot.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.19-4-2017Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Compared by: Read by :

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt. K.Lalitha Kumari, Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

FRIDAY THE 22 nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

I.D.No.182/2015

Between:

The Depot Secretary, A.P.S.R.T.C, Employees Union, Rayachoti, On behalf of Sri S.A. Hussain, E.No.404894, Conductor of Rajampet Depot, Presently working at Rayachoti Depot.… Petitioner/Workman

AND

1) The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Rajampet & another.

2) The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kadapa. … Respondents/Management

This is an Industrial Dispute existing between the Workmanand the Management and it is referred by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool in Proceedings No.D1/1685/2015 dated 27-10-2015 under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 18-2-2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Ramachandra, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri S.Chandrasekhar, Law Officer for the Respondents/Management and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) On behalf of the Government of A.P the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool has referred the dispute in the proceedings No.D1/1685/2015 dated 27-10-2015 to this Court for adjudication the Industrial Dispute. “Whether the Depot Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Rayachoty is justified in demanding the revocation of punishment order No.Steno/20/(97)/1997-RMC dt.19-4-1997 issued by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa against the Workman Sri S.A.Hussain E.No.404894 by deferment of annual increment for a period of two years which shall have the effect of postponing his future increments besides treating the period of absence i.e., from the date of removal to till he reports the duty as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled?

2) The brief averments of the Claim Petitioner is that Workman was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1989, he was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly, continuously and to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors, the authorities framed the following charge against him. CHARGE:

2 “For having absent for duties from 17-8-1994 to till date i.e., (12- 12-1994) unauthroisedly without prior sanction of leave or intimation to the Depot authorities, which constitute the misconduct under Regulation”.

3) The Workman submitted explanation denying the charge leveled against him. The Workman stated that he fell ill due to kidney problem by which his face and legs developed swelling unable to perform duty, hence he submitted sick certificate from 1-8-1994 to 16-8-1994, after that his health condition was not improved and he was advised by the doctors to extend the sick leave from 17-8-1994 to 30-9-1994, accordingly he submitted the sick certificate to the Depot Manager, Rajampet but same was not considered and they marked absent and subsequently removed from the service. The Workman contended that he has not received any enquiry call letter for domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer conducted exparte enquiry when the he was taking treatment at Archana Nursing Home Rayachoti. The enquiry officer without following the principles of natural justice submitted a farce enquiry report, basing on which the Respondent without serving copy of enquiry report without calling for objections imposed punishment of removal from service, the said punishment is highly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

4) The Workman preferred appeal and the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager considered the appeal and reinstated the Workman into service duly imposing the major punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years which shall have effect on future increments besides treating the period of absent from the date of removal till he reports the duty as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increment. The 2nd Respondent failed to consider the fact that the Workman was suffering from kidney problem and also submitted the sick certificate to the 1st Respondent and he was punished illegally by removal, due to which the Workman faced innumerable difficulties even though the 2nd Respondent reinstated him into service, instead of appreciating the facts, imposed further more punishment which caused huge financial loss to the Workman by viewing of the losing three increments which amounts to more than three lakh rupees by his retirement. The Workman is poor man surviving with his wife college going children, by deferment of two annual increments for a period of two years permanently with cumulative effect, caused huge financial crunch in his salary and become very difficult to lead the family. The Petitioner representing the Workman prayed the Court to pass an Award holding that the punishment order against the Workman issued under the proceedings No.Steno/20/(97)/1997-RMC dt.19-4-1997 as illegal, invalid unjust and arbitrary and to set aside, direct the Respondents to restore the deferred annual increments besides payment of incremental arrears and to treat the period of removal as on duty for the purpose, leave and increments. Hence the Claim statement.

3

5) The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made by the Petition. The Respondent contended that the Workman was appointed as a causal conductor in the Corporation on 8-6-1989 subsequently regularized on 1-8-1990. He was censured on six occasions, his annual increments deferred for ten times in different cases, he was attached to the Respondent depot during the material time, it is reported by the TI-2 and TI-3 of Rajampet depot that the Workman was absented to his duties from 17-8- 1994 to 12-12-1994 and from 5-11-1996 to till 11-11-1996 the Workman has absented for his duties unauthorisedly without any intimation without any prior sanction or prior permission from higher authorities which results much inconvenience to operate the buses and also to the travelling public. On that the Workman was charge sheeted on 14-9-1994 with charge: CHARGE: “For having absent for duties from 17-8-1994 to till date i.e., (12-12- 1994) unauthorisedly without prior sanction of leave or intimation to the Depot authorities, which constitute the misconduct under Regulation.

6) The charge sheet was supplied to the Workman, case was entrusted to CI of Rajampeta depot for conducting domestic enquiry, during the course of enquiry statement of TI-2 and TI-3 of Rajampeta depot was recorded. A fair enquiry was conducted by following the principles of natural justice. Basing on the report submitted by the enquiry officer the Respondent holds that charge leveled against the Workman was proved, on that the Respondent came to a conclusion that the charge leveled against the Workman was proved, for which penalty of removal from service was imposed, accordingly a show cause notice was issued against the Workman, he acknowledge the same, on that proceedings were issued and final order of removal from services of the Corporation with immediate effect proceeding dt.11-11-96 was issued. The Workman preferred appeal before Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Kadapa and same was considered, the Workman was reinstated into service, as a measure of punishment annual increments when next falls due be deferred for a period of two years which shall have the effect of postponing the future increments. The Workman preferred appeal to the Regional Manager, Kadapa the same was rejected by the review authorities. The action taken by the Respondent on proved charges is just and legal and proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the Workman. The Respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition.

7) During the course of proceedings the Counsel for the Petitioner filed a Memo on 10-8-2016 stating that Petitioner is not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry procedurally, thus domestic enquiry held to be valid subject to reappraisal of the same.

8) Both parties reported no oral evidence on behalf of the Petitioner Ex.W-1 marked. On behalf of the Respondent Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-3 marked.

9) Ex.W-1 is the Xerox copy of sick certificate. Ex.M-1 is the copy of proceedings of the Disciplinary authority. Ex.M-2 is the copy of proceedings 4 of the Appellate Authority. Ex.M-3 is the copy of proceedings of the Review Authority.

10) Heard both sides and perused relevant records.

11) Now the point for consideration is: Whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is perverse or is disproportionate to the charge proved?

12) It is not dispute that the Workman was appointed as a Casual Conductor in the Corporation on 8-6-1989 and was regularized w.e.f 1-8- 1990. It is admitted fact that the Workman was absented to his duties from 17-8-1994 to 12-12-1994 unauthorisedly without prior sanction of leave to the depot authorities. On that an enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and submitted the report accordingly on 11-11-1996. Proceedings were issued under Ex.M-1 stating that the charge leveled against the Workman S.A Hussain conductor of Rajampeta depot for absence to duties on 1-8-1994 and he produced sick certificate from 1-8-1994 to 16-8-1994 thereafter he was absented from 17-8-1994 till date unauthorizedly without any prior sanction. As per the Ex.M-1 report the charges were proved against the Workman on that he was removed from the service against the order the Workman preferred appeal before Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Kadapa region. The said appeal was allowed under Ex.M-2 dt.19-4-1997 by reinstating the Workman into service and as a measure of punishment his annual increments when next falls due deferred for a period of two years which shall have the effect of postponing his future increments and further the absence from the duty treated as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments. Against the said orders the Workman preferred review, the same was dismissed vide proceedings Ex.M-3, as such the matter was referred to the Government through Union as such the matter was filed

before the Court under Section 10 (1) and (2) of the I.D Act.

13) The case of the Petitioner/Union in the Claim statement is that the Workman suffered with kidney problem and he was taking treating and he was advised by the doctors to continue the treatment as his health condition was not good, he extended the treatment from 17-8-1994 to 30-9-1994, accordingly a sick certificate was also issued, Workman submitted the sick certificate to the Depot Manager, Rajampeta depot but the same was not considered and marked absent. The Claim Petitioner further contended that while he was taking treatment at Archana Nursing Home Rayachoty an enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer without giving any opportunity to the Workman to submit the explanation. The Claim Petitioner got filed Ex.W-1 sick certificate issued by Archana Nursing Home, Rayachoty showing that Shaik Ahamad Hussain E.No.404894 working as a conductor APSRTC Rajampeta depot he is suffering from kidney problem and advised to take rest from 17-8-1994 to 30-9-1994. The certificate clearly shows that the Workman was unable to attend the duties from 17-8-1994 to 30-9-1994 due to his ill-health. Even as per the Counter filed by the Respondent which clearly shows that the Workman was unauthorizedly absent from 17-8-1994 5 till 12-12-1994. Ex.M-1 proceedings clearly shows that initially the conductor had submitted sick leave on 1-8-1994 and produced the sick certificate up to 16-8-1994, there after he was absented from duty on 17-8-1994. Then it is clear that due to ill health the Workman obtained leave from 1-8-1994 to 16- 8-1994 even according to the Ex.W-1 the Workman was taking treatment continuously up to 30-9-1994 due to his ill-health and kidney problems. As such the reasons for absence is only due to ill-health. But the charge leveled against the Workman is that without out any prior intimation he absented from duty according to the Claim Petitioner he submitted the sick certificate

before Depot Manager Rajampet but the same was not consider. As per the

Ex.M-1 the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry Officer on 26-9-1994 even according to the Petitioner that he was taking treating during that period even as per Ex.W-1 also. As such it is clear that the enquiry officer conducted exparte enquiry.

14)In a decision reported in Bijlani vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 wherein it was held:

"It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial

review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being

quasi- criminal in nature, there should be some evidence

to prove the charge. Although the charges in a

departmental proceeding are not required to be proved

like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we

cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer

performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the

documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been

a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the

basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot

take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot

refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the

burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of

the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and

conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with

which the delinquent officer had not been charged with."

15)The Workman has been removed from service on the charge of having remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. Absence from duty is by itself a misconduct. In a case Nathu Ram Saini v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. And Anr. Reported in 1995(1) LLJ 421 has held that absence from duty is itself a misconduct. In State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla [11] the Court, dealing with unauthorized absence, has stated thus: - “Unauthorised absence (or overstaying leave), is an act of indiscipline. Whenever there is an unauthorized absence by an employee, two courses are open to the employer. The first is to condone the unauthorized absence by accepting the explanation and sanctioning leave for the period of the unauthorized absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned. The second is to treat the unauthorized absence as a misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment for the misconduct.”

16)The learned Law Officer who is representing the Respondents contended that the Workman failed to attend the duties and he failed to take any prior permission or leave for his absence and caused inconvenience to 6 the corporation and also to the public and it amounts to misconduct as per regulations of the corporation and that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and confirmed in the appeal and review authorities is valid and justified and the punishment of removal of services of the Workman is proportionate to the charges leveled against the Workman and that there are no grounds to interfere with the recorded by the Respondents.

17) The learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Workman failed to attend for duties as he fell sick and the Workman explained the same and the authorities satisfied with the explanation given by the Workman and allowed him to attend to the duties and the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and confirmed by the appellate and review authorities is not valid and justified.

18) During the course of domestic enquiry the enquiry officer examined the witnesses and it is clear that the Workman did not obtain any prior permission or intimation to the authorities about his absence. The absence of the Petitioner caused much hardship to the Department and much inconvenience to the public. Even as per Ex.W-1 the treatment period from 17-8-1994 to 30-9-1994 but as per the charge that he was absented for the duties from 17-8-1994 till 12-12-1994. Then it is clear that even after completion of treatment the petitioner did not informed about the reason for his absence to the higher authorities even though the enquiry was conducted during that period, there is no representation from the Petitioner

before the authorities which caused unauthorised absence to the duties of

the Petitioner.

19) The conduct and attitude of the Workman appears to have been extremely and cavalier. An employee must take his duty seriously. He cannot take his employment for granted. He must follow the rules and regulations of the employer. He must conduct himself in a disciplined manner. He must perform his duties with responsibility. An employee should adhere to discipline not only for personal excellence but also for the collective good of the organization which he serves. An employee/Workman who absents himself from duty without obtaining leave and does not think it necessary to send even one intimation to the employer during such period of absence, deserves no sympathy. Any kind of leniency or indulgence shown to such employee would send a wrong signal to the other employees of the organization which will be detrimental to the interest of all concerned.

20) The learned advocate for the Workman further relied upon the decision reported in 2008-II-LLJ-625 (SC), Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Versus Rawel Singh wherein it was observed that dismissal of Workman for absence of few days to be excessive punishment.

21) The learned advocate for the Petitioner further relied upon the decision reported in;

Syed Zaheer Hussain Vs. Union of India and others, 1991 1 LLJ

876, wherein the Workman failed to attend to his duties and after conducting departmental enquiry, he was removed from service. In that 7 connection it was observed that the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and the contrary it is required to be substituted by appropriate lesser punishment. By observing the same the Respondents therein were directed to reinstate the Workman into service with continuity and with all other benefits.

22) In a decision reported in W.P.No.2891/2010 of Honourable High Court of A.P wherein it was observed that it was well settled law that a misconduct which could not form part of charge and enquiry, cannot be considered for the purpose of inflicting punishment. The said principle is also approved by the division bench of Honourable High Court in the judgment in W.A.No.769/2005. By observing the same directed the Respondents therein to reinstate the Petitioner therein into service with continuity of service, but without any attendant benefits and back-wages..

23)So far as the doctrine of proportionality is concerned, there is no gainsaying that the said doctrine has not only arrived at in our legal system but has come to stay. With the rapid growth of Administrative Law and the need and necessity to control possible abuse of discretionary powers by various administrative authorities, certain principles have been evolved by Courts. If an action taken by any authority is contrary to law, improper, unreasonable, irrational or otherwise unreasonable, a Court of Law can interfere with such action by exercising power of judicial review. One of such modes of exercising power, known to law is the ‘doctrine of proportionality’. ‘Proportionality’ is a principle where the Court is concerned with the process, method or manner in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities, reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision- making consists in the attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case. The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exercise-the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities. The order of dismissal from service holding that the same was harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation-vs.-Rawel Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the dismissal of the concerned Workman on the ground of absence for few days was grossly disproportionate and excessively high. The Supreme Court upheld the award of the Labour Court to the extent the same directed reinstatement of the employee but modified the award by denying back wages to the employee. In Bhagwan Lal Arya-vs.-Commissioner of Police, Delhi (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court interpreted Rules 8(a) and 10 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 and observed that the said two Rules provide that the

penalty of removal from service can be imposed only in

cases of grave misconduct and continued misconduct

indicating incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police

service. However, the absence of the appellant for two

months and eight days on medical ground with application

8

for leave could not be termed as grave misconduct so as to

render him unfit for police service and hence, the

punishment was totally disproportionate to the proved

misconduct of the appellant. The order of dismissal was

accordingly set aside.

In Mahinder Dutt Sharma-vs.-Union of India (11 April,

1947), the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering Rule 41(1),

proviso of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

which provided for compassionate allowance to dismissed/

removed employees. In that connection, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court observed that absenteeism was not an act

of moral turpitude or of dishonesty or an act designed to

make illegitimate gains from the employer or an

actdirected to harm a third party. Hence, the concerned

employee was entitled to be considered in a

compassionate manner.

24)In the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal

India Limited and Another Vs. Mulul Kumar Choudhuri and Others

2009 (15) SCC 620, wherein it has been held that the extreme punishment of removal from service in certain circumstances is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:- “In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized absence from duty for six months but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have any intention nor desired to disobey the order of higher authority or violate any of the Company’s Rules and Regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be justified, since in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances. The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations”. Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organization. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a passage from Government of India and another v. George Philip[18]: - “In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty, granting six months’ time to join duty amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of the work culture in the organization. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution have the tendency to negate or destroy the same.” 9

25) After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate authority ordered for reinstating the employee but the appellate authority held that punishment of deferment of two increments with cumulative effect. Now it has to be seen that whether the punishment Awarded by the appellate authority is excessive. The Counsel for the Petitioner cited the decision reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 609 in Krushnakant B.Parmar Versus Union of India and another it was observed; “If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a government servant.

26) The Counsel for the Petitioner cited the orders in W.P.No.7688/2011in Ch.Pushpanandam Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C Rep. by its Managing director, Hyderabad and others it was held that; “The departmental proceedings must be in proportionate with the severity of the misconduct. If the punishment is showing to the consciousness of the Court, the same can be interfered with. The misconduct in this case is absence of twenty days by the Petitioner without applying for leave or taking prior permission from the competent authorities. A proper explanation was given for his absence i.e., ill health. So considering these aspects, it is not a case of severe misconduct so as to affect the financial benefits of the petitioner throughout his service.

27) By taking into consideration of the principles laid down in the decisions referred above it can be safely held that the punishment of deferment of two increments of the Workman shall be deferred with cumulative effect for a period of two years is not valid and justified and the said punishment is not proportionate to the charges leveled against the Workman in the circumstances of the case, for the above reason I hold that the punishment for the charge of unauthorized absence was framed against him even though the Workman submitted the sick certificate for the period from 17-8-1994 to 30-9-1994, in the mean while enquiry was conducted and he was removed from services even after preferring the appeal was reinstated. It is not difficult to imagine the inconvenience caused to the Corporation as well as the public on account of the absence of the Workman but the reason for absence is nothing but ill-health and could not attend the duties due to ill-health by taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of view that the punishment of deferment of the increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect is modified as without Cumulative effect and the rest of the punishment is unaltered.

10

In the result the reference made by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-IV, Kurnool No.D1/1685/2015 dt.27-10-2017 is hereby answered and the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years which shall have effect of the postponing his future increments besides treating the period of absence from the date of removal till he reports for duty as not on duty for the purpose of leave and increments is hereby modified as without Cumulative effect and the rest of the punishment is unaltered. Accordingly and Award is passed by answering the reference dt.27-10- 2017. Typed to my dictation on the Computer System by the incharge Steno-Typist corrected and pronounced by me on this the 22nd day of February, 2019

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

1)Ex.W-1Dt.-Xerox copy of sick certificate.

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.11-11-1996Proceedings of the Disciplinary authority.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.19-4-1997Proceedings oftheAppellate Authority.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.30-12-2014Proceedings of the Review Authority.

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Compared by: Read by :

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt. K.Lalitha Kumari Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

WEDNESDAY THE 27 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

I.D.No.285/2016

Between:

Sri Aluru Korivi Raj Kumar, S/o Jayaraj, Age 50 years, D.No.5-6-99/138, Model Colony, Hindupur (Post & (Mandal), Anantapuramu District.… Workman/Petitioner

AND

1)The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Puttaparthy.

2)The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Anantapuramu.… Respondents/Management

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondents and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947. This Industrial Dispute coming on 19-2-2019 before me in the presence of Sri P.Ramachandra, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri S.Chandrasekhara, Law officer

for the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day

the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) The dispute raised under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D Act by the Petitioner questioning the removal order of the 1st Respondent dated 29-7-2016 with a prayer to set aside the orders with a direction to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service with all back-wages, with all attendant benefits.

2) The contents of the claim statement filed by the Petitioner is that the

Petitioner was appointed as Casual Driver during the year 2001 and regularized during the year 2007. From the date of joining the Petitioner was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly to the satisfaction of his superiors. On 14-4-2016 while the

Workman was proceeding for services on the route Puttaparthy to Bellary he was checked with breath analyzer at Puttaparthy depot security branch by the Security

Constable, basing on the report of RTC Constable the Workman was placed under suspension and subsequently removed from the service basing on the following charge.

CHARGE:

“For having found in intoxicated condition when checked by the RHC/ ATP with alcohol tester at Puttaparthy depot when you were ready to go for 07-00 hrs., Puttaparthy-Bellary service on 14-4-2016 which is 2 danger to the lives of travelling public and tarnished the image of corporation in the eyes of public and detrimental to the interests of the Corporation, which is contrary to the rules and regulations of the Corporation and which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28 (xv) &

(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

3) The Petitioner has submitted explanation by denying the charges stating that he has not committed any misconduct under APSRTC conduct regulations. On 14-4-2016 and he was booked for Puttaparthy - Bellary route, the Petitioner while proceeding for duty went to the Security Constable at Puttaparthy to underwent routine breath analyzer test the security Constable kept the tester before the

Petitioner he not even exhaled breath in the tester the Constable informed him that tester gave the result of 86 mg/100 ml., and for which he has astonished and requested the security Constable to conduct test for second time but the Constable did not accept the same stating that the instructions do not permit him to conduct test for second time. The Petitioner requested the Security Constable at least to direct him for medical check at Government Hospital Puttaparthy and to get confirmation of the faulty report of the tester for that also he did not accept. The 1st

Respondent is aware that the testing appliance gave different reading for 2nd and 3rd check the Petitioner himself went to RTC Medical Officer, Puttaparthi and informed the allegation of the drunkenness and requested him to conduct medical examination to decide whether he was in drunken condition or not RTC authorized Medical Officer

Puttaparthy conducted medical examination and gave a certificate stating that

Petitioner was not under the alcoholic influence when checked at 9-15 a.m on 14-4- 2016 which clearly shows that the tester gave a faulty report even though the

Petitioner has not consumed any alcohol.

4) The Petitioner was an heart patient and underwent stunt operation, from their onwards he has not taken any alcohol, the Petitioner consumed tablets during the night time and taken some Sapota fruits and attended for early hours duty. The reason for wrong reading is not known to the Petitioner, the test report was not shown to the Petitioner and the signatures were obtained on it without conducting any test before the witnesses.

5) During the domestic enquiry Deputy Superintendent (T) conducted preliminary enquiry. During the cross examination on Duty Controller did not see the test. The test conducted by Constable but signed as a witness on the report. The

Petitioner was not directed to attend the medical test before the doctor which clearly shows that the test was not conducted before the Controller properly as such the report is suspectable and tester might be at fault.

6) During the domestic enquiry Security Head Constable was cross examined and deposed that he did not observe any alcohol smell before subjecting him for check, he further deposed that he did not direct him to the medical officer as there no instructions given by higher authorities .

3

7) During the course of domestic enquiry on Duty Controller Sri Govindu deposed in the cross examination he did not observe any alcohol smell from the

Petitioner while signing in the chart and Security Head he did not conduct breath analyzer test in front of him but his signatures were obtained.

8) When the Workman demanded to take second check, same was denied and the Workman was not referred to the Government Hospital for blood analysis test at

Government Hospital, Puttaparthy. The enquiry officer conducted a farce enquiry without following the principles of natural justice. The Respondent failed to consider the fact that the Petitioner rendered 15 years of service and he did not involved in any drunken case during the past and the Petitioner was denied the opportunity to attend before medical examination. The Respondent failed to consider the fact that the tester is not sole evidence to remove the employee from his services.

Respondent failed to consider the fact that the entire family of the Workman is under distress. The Respondent also failed to consider that the Petitioner himself under gone medical checkup at RTC Medical Officer, Puttaparthy and obtained certificate at 9-15 a.m on 14-4-2016. Thus the punishment for removal is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the removal of Workman is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The Petitioner prays the Court to pass an award holding the removal order passed against the Petitioner by the 1st Respondent under vide proceedings

No.P2/118(02)/2016-PTP dt.29-7-2016 and the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent as illegal unjust invalid, arbitrary and direct the Respondents to reinstate the

Petitioner into service with continuity of service with full back-wages with all attendant benefits and to grant such other relief which deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of the justice.

9) The Respondents filed counter, the contention of the Respondent is that the

Petitioner was appointed as a casual driver in the Corporation on 23-4-2003, subsequently regularized with effect from 6-10-2007, his annual increments were deferred for two times in different cases and he was censured on four times in his service and amounts were recovered from his salary for 11 times in his service. The

Petitioner was removed from the service on 29-7-2016 for having involved in consumption of alcohol case on 14-4-2016 at about 6-56 hrs., when the Petitioner has approached at security branch after signed in the controlled chart for seven hours

Puttaparthy to Bellary service, the Petitioner was under gone breath analyzer test and found that alcohol 86 mg.,/100ml., the Petitioner is under the influence of the alcohol which is serious misconduct.

10) The case was entrusted to Deputy Superintendent (T) of Puttaparthy to conduct preliminary enquiry and to submit report, accordingly Deputy Superintendent

Puttaparthy has conducted enquiry and submitted report and confirmed that BAC test of alcohol is 86mg/100 ml., when the alcohol test conducted on the Petitioner on 14- 4-2016 which is serious misconduct in driving the bus in an intoxication condition, on 4 that a charge sheet was filed on 9-5-2016 the Petitioner was suspended and following charge was framed.

CHARGE:

“For having found in intoxicated condition when checked by the RHC/ATP with alcohol tester at Puttaparthy depot when you were ready to go for 07-00 hrs., Puttaparthy-Bellary service on 14-4-2016 which is danger to the lives of travelling public and tarnished the image of corporation in the eyes of public and detrimental to the interests of the Corporation, which is contrary to the rules and regulations of the Corporation and which is a serious misconduct under Reg.28 (xv) & (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

11) All relevant documents and charge sheet was received by the Petitioner and acknowledged the same and domestic enquiry was conducted. Assistant

Manager (Enquiries), Regional Manager’s office, Anantapur.

12) During the course of enquiry statements of V.Ramanamma Deputy

Superintendent (T), C.Govindappa Controller, Putaparthy Depot, Yohan RTC Head

Constable, Anantapur bus station was recorded in the presence of the Petitioner and the witnesses were cross examined by the Petitioner. A fair enquiry was conducted in accordance with C C & A regulations by following the principles of natural justice.

The Enquiry officer submitted the report holding that the charge leveled against the

Petitioner as proved. The Respondent authority called the objections of the Petitioner on 5-7-2016 the Petitioner received the same and acknowledged the same. The

Petitioner submitted his explanation on 16-7-2016. Basing on the entire evidence available on record, the Respondent came to a conclusions that the charges leveled against the Petitioner was held proved. Accordingly a show cause notice for removal from service as given 22-7-2016. The Petitioner gave his explanation on 26-7-2016, accordingly the proceedings was issued under P2/118(02/2016-PTP dt.29-7-2016 the

Petitioner preferred appeal to Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Hindupur same was rejected by the appellate authority on merits. Therefore the action taken by the Respondent for the proved charge is legal, and proportionate to gravity of misconduct committed by the Petitioner. The Respondent prays the Court to dismiss the I.D by uphold the action taken by the Respondent.

13) During the course of enquiry the Counsel for the Petitioner filed a Memo on 14-7-2017 stating that the Petitioner is not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry and requested to reappraisal of the evidence and adjudicate the dispute.

14) No oral evidence was adduced on both sides. On behalf of the Petitioner

Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-6 marked. On behalf of the Respondent Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-19 marked.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER

1)Ex.W-1 Dt.14-4-2016Medical certificate issued by the Medical RTC Clinic, Puttaparty.

2)Ex.W-2Dt.29-7-2016Proceedings of the Depot Manager, Puttaparthy.

3)Ex.W-3Dt.9-9-2016Proceedings of the Deputy Chief 5

Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hindupur.

4)Ex.W-4Dt.20-12-2017Circular No.PA-27/2017 of APSRTC.

5)Ex.W-5Dt.25-7-2018Circular No.PD-20/2018 of APSRTC.

6)Ex.W-6 Dt.12-9-2018Circular No.PD-33/2018 of APSRTC.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.14-4-2016Report of the RTC Head Constable, PTP depot.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.-BAC report.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.14-4-2016Report of the RTC Head Constable, PTP depot.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.14-4-2016Statement of the Petitioner.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.4-5-2016Preliminary enquiry report.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.9-5-2016Charge sheet.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.9-5-2016Suspension order.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.-Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.18-5-2016Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.23-5-2016Allotment of Enquiry Officer.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.30-5-2016Call letter for enquiry.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.25-6-2016Domestic enquiry report.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.5-7-2016Objections called about enquiry.

14)Ex.M-14Dt.16-7-2016Objections submitted by the Petitioner.

15)Ex.M-15Dt.22-7-2016Show cause notice of removal from service.

16)Ex.M-16Dt.26-7-2016Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

17)Ex.M-17Dt.29-7-2016Proceedings of the Disciplinary authority.

18)Ex.M-18Dt.-Acknowledgment of the Petitioner.

19)Ex.M-19Dt.9-9-2016Proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

15) The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had not consumed alcohol, though the Petitioner requested to send him to Government hospital to conduct medical test and blood analysis but the said request of the

Petitioner was not considered. The counsel for the Petitioner argued a false enquiry was conducted and passed orders of removal, which is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct to set aside the removal order dated 29-7-2016.

16) The Law Officer on behalf of the Respondent argued that the Petitioner found in intoxication condition and the same was proved by evidence under domestic enquiry report and order of removal is quite proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

17) On considering the arguments, now the points that arises for consideration are;

1. Whether the Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time of checking?

2. Whether the orders of the Respondent requires any interference?

6

3. To what relief?

As the points No.1 to 3 are interrelated, so I deal with them together.

18) According to the Petitioner was appointed as a casual driver in the year 2001 and regularized in the year 2007 but according to the Respondent the Petitioner was appointed as a causal driver on 23-4-2003 and subsequently regularized on 6-10- 2007and it is also not in dispute that Petitioner was posted to the bus service from

Puttaprthy to Bellary on 14-4-2016 at 7-00 a.m.

19) It is not in dispute that during the routine check the Petitioner approached security branch at 6-56 a.m on 14-4-2016 for breath analyzer test and found that the

Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol as a test result alcohol is 86 mg.,/100 ml., Then a report was submitted, then the matter was entrusted to the Deputy

Superintendent (T) Puttaparthy to conduct preliminary enquiry, accordingly Petitioner was suspended and a charge was framed. As the Petitioner not questioning the validity of domestic enquiry but request to reappraise the evidence taken at the time of enquiry, then it is necessary to look into the documentary evidence which was marked under Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-19. Ex.M-1 is the report given by head Constable

APSRTC Puttaparthy depot dt.14-4-2016 to the Depot Manager APSRTC, Putaparthy.

Ex.M-2 is the breath analyzer test report signed by the witnesses. Ex.M-3 is the report given by Head Constable dt.14-4-2016. Ex.M-4 is the representation given by

Workman A.K. Rajkumar to the head Constable stating that that he has not taken any alcohol except taking some tablets. Ex.M-5 is the enquiry report dt.4-5-2016. Ex.M-6 is the charge sheet. Ex.M-7 is the suspension order dt.9-5-2016 and Ex.M-8 is the acknowledgement. Ex.M-9 is the explanation given by the Workman dt.18-8-2016 and

Ex.M-10 is the nomination of the enquiry officer i.e., Assistant Manager (enquires)

R.M’s office, Anantapuramu to conduct enquiry. Ex.M-11 is the call letter for enquiry dt.30-5-2016 and domestic enquiry report is Ex.M-12. Ex.M-13 is the objections called about enquiry dt.5-7-2016 and Ex.M-14 is the objections submitted by the employee. Ex.M-15 is the show cause notice of removal. Ex.M-16 is the explanation given by the employee and Ex.M-17 is the proceedings removal orders dt.29-7-2016 and Ex.M-18 is the acknowledgement. Ex.M-19 is the rejection order of the appeal dt.9-9-2016. The documents Ex.M-1 toEx.M-19 are clear that the Petitioner was tested with breath analyzer and found that the reading of BAC test 86 mg/100 ml., same was proved by the breath analyzer test report under Ex.M-2. Since the report of breath analyzer cannot be doubted and as there is absolutely no necessity to the head Constable to gave a false report or to implicate falsely in intoxication case more over breath analyzer test was conducted in the presence of the witnesses and whose names were also recorded by the enquiry officer who was subjected to cross examine by the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that in the cross examination witness deposed that they were not present at the time of conducting breath analyzer test but as seen from the cross examination of witness by name Govindappa employee 7

No.403289 categorically deposed that he was present at the time of breath analyzer test and he signed as a witness and found the result 86 mgs/100 ml., that the contention of the Petitioner the test was not conducted in the presence of witnesses or not correct. The other contention of the Petitioner is that the breath analyzer equipment gave a wrong reading, if that is the case the Petitioner ought to have raised objection immediately after conducting test but no attempt was made by the

Petitioner at the time of conducting test as such the contention of the Petitioner is not taken into consideration. The other contention of the Petitioner is that he made a request to the head Constable to refer him to the medical examination but his request was not considered on that he went to Government hospital, Puttaparthy and obtained report and found that the Petitioner has not consumed any alcohol by that time. According to the Petitioner he approached the RTC doctor at 9-30 a.m then it is clear that there is time gap in between Ex.M-2 report is about 6-56 a.m and the medical report is 9-30 a.m, normally the result will not positive in view of the long time gap as such the contention of the Petitioner that he himself approached the medical tests and submitted Ex.W-1 report, the said report is no way helpful to the

Petitioner in support of his contention.

20) Even the Petitioner gave his explanation that he was falsely implicated same cannot be taken into consideration in view of the BAC report Ex.M-2 that the reading of BAC test 86mg/100ml.,

21) As per the circular issued by APSRTC Circular No.PD-27/2017 dt.20-12-2017

Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act while driving or attempt to drive motor vehicle;

(a) has alcohol exceeding 30 mg., per 100 ml., of blood detected in a test by a breath analyzer Or

b) Is under the influence of the drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle is punishable.

22) With regarding to the circular No.PD33/2018 dt.12-9-2018 and Circular

No.PD20/2018dt.25-7-2018 are clear that when breath analyzer test found with the reading of 30mgs.,/100 ml., of alcohol which amounts to misconduct and punishment should be awarded, in the present case as breath analyzer test found 86 mg/100 ml., hence it is a misconduct rightly observed by the enquiry officer and appellate authority.

23) Therefore the material placed before the Court is clear that the Petitioner was in intoxication condition at the time of attending duties. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

24) The counsel for the Petitioner argued that orders passed by the Respondent is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and appeals preferred by the Workman to the higher authorities were rejected.

8

25) With regard to the punishment given by the Respondent against the

Petitioner i.e., proceedings of removal from the service as per the documents filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner was appointed as a casual driver in the year 2003 and regularized the year 2007 and he has completed more than 13 years of service on the date of removal, the management should have considered the earlier track record and should have given some punishment instead of removal from the service. The appellate authorities also rejected the appeals basing on the findings of the disciplinary authority. As per the decision reported in 1984 1 LLJ 33 in between

Jaswant Singh Vs. Pepsu Road Ways Transport Corporation and another that; “the Punishment of dismissal was rather heavy and there for reducing the punishment”. The counsel for the Petitioner argued there is no such single incident that the

Petitioner has been indulging in such activities in earlier occasion. The counsel for the Petitioner cited a decision;

In CDJ 1996 APHC 612 in between Samiullahkhan Vs. Labour Court

Godavarikhani, it was held that; “the driver was found to be in a drunken condition while on duty and generally, it would not be desirable to keep such persons in service. But the fact remains that it is a solitary instance and it is not the case that the Petitioner has been indulging such activities on earlier occasions also. Therefore the punishment of removal from service totally denying the livelihood of the Petitioner is unduly harsh”

In CDJ 1983 SC 301 Jaswant Singh Versus Pepsu Roadways Transport

Corporation and another, it was held that; “Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.11-A of the Industrial disputes Act was of the opinion that in the facts of the case punishment of dismissal was rather heavy and was not called for and therefore, reduced the punishment. But the reduction was to level namely mere refusal of back-wages, which would be inadequate punishment in the facts of this case”.

26) In view of the principles laid down in the above cases, the Court is of considered view that the punishment of the Respondent for removal of the Petitioner is improper, unjust, and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct when taking into consideration of the length of the service and family back ground of the

Workman, and in the circumstances the Court is inclined to set aside the orders dt.29-7-2016 in the interest of the justice.

In the result, an Award is passed by setting aside the proceedings

No.P2/118(02)/2016-P.T.P dated 29-7-2016 and the Respondents are directed to reinstated the Petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages. On reinstatement of the Petitioner, the Respondent shall defer two annual increments with cumulative effect.

Accordingly an award is passed.

Typed to my dictation on the Computer System by the incharge Steno-Typist corrected and pronounced by me on this the 27th day of February 2019.

9

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

1)Ex.W-1 Dt.14-4-2016Medical certificate issued by the Medical RTC Clinic, Puttaparty.

2)Ex.W-2Dt.29-7-2016Proceedings of the Depot Manager, Puttaparthy.

3)Ex.W-3Dt.9-9-2016Proceedings of the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hindupur.

4)Ex.W-4Dt.20-12-2017Circular No.PA-27/2017 of APSRTC.

5)Ex.W-5Dt.25-7-2018Circular No.PD-20/2018 of APSRTC.

6)Ex.W-6 Dt.12-9-2018Circular No.PD-33/2018 of APSRTC.

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.14-4-2016Report of the RTC Head Constable, PTP depot.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.-BAC report.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.14-4-2016Report of the RTC Head Constable, PTP depot.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.14-4-2016Statement of the Petitioner.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.4-5-2016Preliminary enquiry report.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.9-5-2016Charge sheet.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.9-5-2016Suspension order.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.-Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.18-5-2016Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.23-5-2016Allotment of Enquiry Officer.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.30-5-2016Call letter for enquiry.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.25-6-2016Domestic enquiry report.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.5-7-2016Objections called about enquiry.

14)Ex.M-14Dt.16-7-2016Objections submitted by the Petitioner.

15)Ex.M-15Dt.22-7-2016Show cause notice of removal from service.

16)Ex.M-16Dt.26-7-2016Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

17)Ex.M-17Dt.29-7-2016Proceedings of the Disciplinary authority.

18)Ex.M-18Dt.-Acknowledgment of the Petitioner.

19)Ex.M-19Dt.9-9-2016Proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 10

ANANTAPURAMU.

Compared by : Read by :

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt. K.Lalitha Kumari Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

TUESDAY THE 26 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

I.D.No.83/2017

Between:

Kuragayala Thyagaraju, S/o K.Venkatadri, Aged 58 years, Padmavathi Nagar, Kurrakalva, Papanaidupet (P), Renigunta (M), Chittoor Dist.… Workman/Petitioner

AND

1)The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Tirupati.

2)The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Tirupati.

3)The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Tirupati.

4)The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Nellore. … Respondents/Management

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondents and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947. This Industrial Dispute coming on 18-2-2019 before me in the presence of Sri P.Ramachandra, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri S.Chandrasekhara, Law officer

for the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day

the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) The dispute raised under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D Act by the Petitioner questioning the removal order of the 1st Respondent dated 31-12-2014 with a prayed to set aside the orders with a direction to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service with all back-wages, with all attendant benefits.

2) The contents of the claim statement filed by the Petitioner is that the

Petitioner was appointed as Casual Driver during the year 1987 and regularized during the year 1989. From the date of joining the Petitioner was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly to the satisfaction of his superiors. On 14-8-2014 the

Workman parked the bus at Central Bus Station Tirupati to perform services at 20-00 hrs., from Tirupati to Hyderabad. The on Duty Controller checked the Workman with 2 alcohol breath analyzer and reported that BAC as 39 mgs.,/100 ml., basing on the report of A.M (T) Tirupati charges were framed against the Workman, subsequently he was removed from service. The charges leveled against the Petitioner are;

CHARGES:

1) “For having attended for 20.00 hrs., Tirupati – Hyderabad S/L service on 14-8-2014 in intoxicated condition, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix-a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963.”

2) For having given scope for accident by attending for duty in intoxicated condition on 14-8-2014 thereby endangering the lives of passengers and other road users besides damages to the property of the corporation, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix-b) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963.”

3) The Petitioner has submitted explanation by denying the charges stating that he has not committed any misconduct under APSRTC conduct regulations. On 14-8-2014 and he was booked for Tirupati to Hyderabad service but due to giddiness and body pains he requested one day leave but it was not granted by the on duty traffic supervisor, in the unavoidable circumstances he signed in the control chart and brought the vehicle from the garage to bus station. He parked the bus at Central Bus

Station and had taken HANS and CORAX cough syrup and tablets to get relief of severe cough and cold, after that he came back to the bus stand at about 20-00 hrs., as a routine checkup the Controller wanted to check him with breath analyzer.

Immediately the Workman readily accepted for breath analyzer test as he has not consumed alcohol on that day. After making some adjustments to the machine the supervisor checked him and generated report of BAC as 39 mgs/100 ml, again he was checked, at that time BAC was shown as 24 mg/100ml., then Petitioner requested them to check again as he has not taken any alcohol, then they took him to the security guard room tested his breath and BAC report shown as 7 mg.,/100 ml., about 20-48 hrs., A copy of report was also submitted to the Respondent.

4) The Workman requested the on duty traffic supervisor to direct him for medical test in the Government hospital and his request was not considered. The breath analyzer is in fault as it was giving different readings for the 2nd and 3rd test but that was not taken into consideration by the duty supervisor.

5) The Petitioner served the Corporation as a Driver for 30 years the machine sometimes showing different readings then it is the duty of the supervisors to confirm the reading by medical test or by blood analysis but the same was not done and requests made by the employee to send him to the hospital was not also considered.

6) The Enquiry Officer conducted a farce enquiry without taking consideration of the points raised by the Petitioner. The Depot Manager also failed to consider that the Petitioner did not avoid the breath analyzer test. There is no clinical 3 corroboration. The Respondent with predetermined mind removed the Petitioner from service.

7) The appeals made to the higher authorities were also dismissed. The

Petitioner is a poor person, after removal from service he lost his wife, and children are college going. The Petitioner unable to meet the family needs due to removal from service. The Petitioner prays the Court to pass an Award by setting aside the removal order passed by the 1stRespondent under vide proceedings

No.01/209(8)/2014-TPT dt.31-12-2014 and the orders passed by the appellate authorities as illegal, invalid, arbitrary and direct the 1st Respondent to treat the period from the date of removal till the date of attaining superannuation up to 31-12- 2017 as on duty with continuity of service with full-back-wages and to pay all retirement benefits and to grant such other reliefs which deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. As the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation, the

Petitioner got amended the Petition. As per the orders in I.A.No.19/2018 dt.11-1-2018 seeking relief “to treat the period from the date of removal till the date of attaining superannuation as on duty with continuity of service with full back-wages”.

8) The Respondent filed counter, the contention of the Respondents is that the

Petitioner was appointed as a Causal Driver in the Corporation on 18-2-1987 and regularized on 15-2-1989, his annual increments were deferred for six times in different cases, amounts were recovered from the salary for 19 times and he was censured for 5 times in his service.

9) The Respondent contended that (1) the Petitioner was removed from the service on 9-9-1999 for having involved in cash and ticket irregularities case, there after he was reinstated as per the orders in I.D.No.280 of 1999 dt.15-6-2002 by

Labour Court, Anantapuramu. (2) The Petitioner was removed from service on 6-2- 2013 for having involved in complaint case at Alipiri depot and reinstated on 30-1- 2014, as a measure of punishment basic pay of the Petitioner was reduced by two incremental stages, there after Petitioner was removed on 31-12-2014 as he was involved in intoxication case.

10) The Assistant Manager (T) of Central Bus Station Tirupati on 14-8-2014 as a routine checkup checked the Petitioner with breath analyzer while the Petitioner was in the Central bus station, when they checked the Petitioner the machine gave beep sound and printed the report showing BAC as 39mg/100ml., which was confirmed that the Petitioner after consuming alcohol attended the duty.

11) A preliminary enquiry was conducted accordingly, Assistant Manager (T) of

Tirupati found that the Petitioner was in intoxicating condition, on that the Petitioner was suspended; a charge sheet was issued with the following charges 1 & 2:

1. “For having attended for 20.00 hrs., Tirupati – Hyderabad S/L service on 14-8-2014 in intoxicated condition, which constitutes misconduct 4 under Regulation 28 (ix-a) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963.”

2. “For having given scope for accident by attending for duty in intoxicated condition on 14-8-2014 thereby endangering the lives of passengers and other road users besides damages to the property of the corporation, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix-

b) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963.”

12) Documents, charge sheet was received and acknowledged by the Petitioner and submitted his explanation and Petitioner was given opportunity to defend his case, a domestic enquiry was conducted by Assistant Manager, (Enquiries) Tirupati.

13) During the course of enquiry, statements of K.C.G Bhaskar, Sri K.Krishna

Mohan, Sri B.G. Kumar and Sri C.A.K Naidu were recorded. The Petitioner availed opportunity of cross examining the witnesses. Thus a fair and proper enquiry was conducted in accordance with the CC&A Regulations by following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that charges leveled against the Petitioner as proved.

14) The Respondent Authority has called for the objections from the Petitioner under vide letter 26-11-2014, accordingly Petitioner submitted his explanation on 5- 12-2014. The Respondent came to a conclusion that the charges leveled against the

Petitioner were proved, for which a penalty of removal of service was ordered which is fit and proper, accordingly a show cause notice for removal was issued, Petitioner acknowledged the same and submitted his explanation on 27-12-2014. There after the Respondent Depot Manager issued proceedings No.01/209(8)/2014-TPT dt.31-12- 2014 removing the Petitioner from service, against the said removal order Petitioner preferred appeal and the same was rejected under vide proceedings dt.31-12-2017.

The Petitioner again preferred appeal to the Regional Manager, Tirupati the same was rejected on 8-7-2016. The Petitioner preferred mercy appeal, the same was also rejected on 28-6-2017. The Petitioner committed grave misconduct, on that the

Petitioner was removed. The disciplinary authority followed the principles of natural justice before taking the action of removal. The appeals preferred by the Petitioner

before the Appellate, Review and Appeal authorities were rejected. Therefore, the

Respondent prays the Court to up hold the removal order passed by the Respondent and requested to dismiss the I.D.

15) During the course of enquiry the Counsel for the Petitioner filed a Memo not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry and requested the Court to reappraisal of the evidence and adjudicate the dispute.

16) No oral evidence was adduced on both sides. On behalf of the Petitioner

Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-7 marked. On behalf of the Respondent Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-18 marked.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER

1)Ex.W-1 Dt.31-12-2014Proceedings of the Depot Manager, Tirupati.

5

2)Ex.W-2Dt.-BAC report.

3)Ex.W-3Dt.8-7-2016ProceedingsoftheRegional Manager, Tirupati.

4)Ex.W-4Dt.28-6-2017Proceedings of the Executive Director, Nellore.

5)Ex.W-5Dt.20-12-2017Circular No.PA-27/2017 of APSRTC.

6)Ex.W-6 Dt.25-7-2018Circular No.PD-20/2018 of APSRTC.

7)Ex.W-7Dt.12-9-2018Circular No.PD-33/2018 of APSRTC.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENTS

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.14-8-2014Report of the ATM/CBS, Tirupati.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.14-8-2014Statement of the Petitioner.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.15-8-2014Report of the CI, CBS, Tirupati.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.-Breath Alcohol Testing Report (Original & Xerox).

5)Ex.M-5Dt.22-8-2014Preliminary enquiry report.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.25-8-2014Charge sheet.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.25-8-2014Suspension order.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.1-9-2014Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.24-11-2014Domestic enquiry report.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.26-11-2014Objections called about enquiry.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.-Acknowledgment of the Petitioner.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.5-12-2014Objections submitted by the Petitioner.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.10-12-2014Show cause notice of removal from service.

14)Ex.M-14Dt.27-12-2014Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

15)Ex.M-15Dt.31-12-2014Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

16)Ex.M-16Dt.31-12-2015Proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

17)Ex.M-17Dt.8-7-2016ProceedingsoftheReview Authority.

18)Ex.M-18Dt.28-6-2017ProceedingsoftheAppeal Authority.

17) The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had not consumed alcohol, though the Petitioner requested to send him to Government hospital to conduct medical test and blood analysis but the said request of the

Petitioner was not considered. The counsel for the Petitioner argued a false enquiry was conducted and passed orders of removal, which is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and prayed for treat the period from date of removal till the date of retirement as on duty with all benefits.

18) The Law Officer on behalf of the Respondent argued that the Petitioner found in intoxication condition and the same was proved by evidence under domestic enquiry report and order of removal is quite proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

19) On considering the arguments, now the points that arises for consideration are; 6

1. Whether the Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time of checking?

2. Whether the orders of the Respondent requires any interference?

3. To what relief?

As the points No.1 to 3 are interrelated, so I deal with them together.

20) It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was appointed by the Respondent

Corporation on 18-2-1987 and subsequently regularized w.e.f 17-2-1989 and it is also not in dispute that Petitioner was posted to the bus service from Tirupati to

Hyderabad on 14-8-2014 for 20-00 hrs.,.

21) It is not in dispute that during the routine check up the Assistant Manager, (Traffic) of Central Bus Station Petitioner was tested with breath analyzer while the

Petitioner was in the Central Bus Station Tirupati and it is also admitted by the

Petitioner as well as Respondent that the report of breath analyzer test showing BAC

as 39mgs.,/100 ml., Accordingly a preliminary enquiry was ordered by framing

charges as the Petitioner not questioning the validity of the domestic enquiry and requested the Court to reappraise the evidence taken at the time of enquiry, then it is necessary to look into the documentary evidence as marked under Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-

18. Ex.M-4 is the report of the ATM, CBS Tirupati dt.14-8-2014 and Ex.M-1, Ex.M-2 and Ex.M-3 are the letters given by the witnesses B.G Kumar, C.A.K Naidu and K.T.

Raju showing their presence at the time of conducting breath analyzer test to the

Workman. Ex.M-5 are the statements of the witnesses along with the enquiry report.

Ex.M-6 is the charge sheet. Ex M-7 is suspension order dt.25-8-2014. Ex.M-8 is the explanation given by the Workman and Ex.M-9 is the domestic enquiry report dt.24- 11-2014. Ex.M-9 is the show cause notice and Ex.M-10 is the explanation given by the employee and Ex.M-11 is the objections called by the employer and Ex.M-12 is the objections submitted by the Workman and Ex.M-13 is the show cuase notice. Ex.M-14 is the explanation submitted by the Workman dt.27-12-2014 and Ex.M-15 to Ex.M-18 are the proceedings issued by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority Review

Authority and mercy Appeal Authority. The documents filed by the Respondent Ex.M- 1 to Ex.M-18 are clear that the Petitioner was tested with breath analyzer and found that the Petitioner was in intoxication condition with reading of 39mgs.,/100ml., the same was proved by the Ex.M-4 breath analyzer report. Since the report of breath analyzer cannot be doubted, as there is absolutely no necessity to the Assistant

Manager (Traffic) i.e., Checking Officials to give false report or to implicate falsely in intoxication case. More over the said breath analyzer test was conducted in the presence of witnesses whose statements were recorded by the Enquiry Officer and who was subjected to cross examine by the Workman/Petitioner.

22) The specific case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner requested the

Assistant Manager (Traffic) to send him to the Government Hospital for medical examination but except oral representation and no written representation given by the Petitioner to the Assistant Manager (T) in the presence of the witnesses after 7 obtaining signatures from the same witnesses, the documents filed by the Petitioner i.e., breath analyzer test report at 20-48hrs., on 14-8-2014. He attended another breath analyzer test but found 7mg.,/100ml., the said Ex.W-2 do not contain any signatures of the witnesses and any signature of the person who has taken the breath analyzer test from the Workman/Petitioner. In the absence of signatures of the witnesses, location and the name of the Inspector, the said Ex.W-3 cannot be taken into consideration if at all the contention of the Petitioner is true and correct, the same has to be produced before the Enquiry Officer by examining the witnesses but not such attempt was made by the Petitioner at the time of enquiry. As such the contention of the Petitioner that there is a variation in the BAC test report which was found at 20-00 hours on 14-8-2014 as 39mg.,/100ml., and within few minute it was found 24 mg.,/100 ml, there after it was found 7Mg.,/100ml., is not supported by any authenticated documentary evidence, hence cannot be taken into consideration.

23) Even though the Petitioner gave his explanations stating that he was falsely implicated, the same cannot be taken into consideration in view of the BAC report.

Ex.M-4 which is clear that the Petitioner was found in intoxication condition with reading of 39mg.,/100 ml.,

24) As per the circular issued by the APSRTC i.e., Circular No.PD-27/2017 dated 20-12-2017, as per the section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act while Driving or attempting to drive motor vehicle ;

(a) has alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml., of blood detected in a test by breath analyzer; OR

(b) is under the influence of the drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle is punishable.

25) With regarding to the circular No.PD33/2018 dated 12-9-2018 and circular

No.PD20/2018 dated 25-7-2018 it is clear that when breath analyzer test found 30 mg.,/100 ml., alcohol found during breath analyzer checking which amounts to misconduct and punishment should be awarded in the present case as breath analyzer test found 39 mg.,/100ml., Hence it is a misconduct rightly observed by the

Enquiry Officer and appellate authority.

26) Therefore the material placed before the Court is clear that the Petitioner was in intoxication condition at the time of attending duties. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

27) The counsel for the Petitioner argued that orders passed by the Respondent is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and appeals preferred by the Workman to the higher authorities were rejected.

28) With regard to the punishment given by the Respondent against the

Petitioner i.e., proceedings of removal from the service as per the documents filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner was appointed as a casual driver on 18-2-1987 and regularized on 15-2-1989 and he has completed more than 27 years of service on the date of removal, the management should have considered the earlier track record 8 and should have given some punishment instead of removal from the service. The appellate authorities also rejected the appeals basing on the findings of the disciplinary authority. As per the decision reported in 1984 1 LLJ 33 in between

Jaswant Singh Vs. Pepsu Road Ways Transport Corporation and another that; “the Punishment of dismissal was rather heavy and there for reducing the punishment”.

In CDJ 1996 APHC 612 in between Samiullahkhan Vs. Labour Court

Godavarikhani, it was held that; “the driver was found to be in a drunken condition while on duty and generally, it would not be desirable to keep such persons in service. But the fact remains that it is a solitary instance and it is not the case that the Petitioner has been indulging such activities on earlier occasions also. Therefore the punishment of removal from service totally denying the livelihood of the Petitioner is unduly harsh”

29) In view of the principles laid down in the above cases, the Court is of considered view that the punishment of the Respondent for removal of the Petitioner is improper, unjust, and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct when taking into consideration of the length of the service and family back ground of the

Workman, and in the circumstances the Court is inclined to modify the orders in the interest of the justice.

In the result, an Award is passed by modifying the proceedings

No.01/209(8)/2014-TPT dt.31-12-2014 of the Disciplinary Authority and ordered the

Respondents to treat the period from the date of removal till the date of attaining the age of superannuation i.e., up to date of 31-12-2017 as on duty with continuity of service only for the purpose of calculating retirement benefits. Since the date of removal to the date of attaining the age of superannuation Petitioner did not render any service to the Respondent Corporation, therefore he is not entitled for back- wages and other attendant benefits.

Accordingly an award is passed.

Typed to my dictation on the Computer System by the incharge Steno-Typist corrected and pronounced by me on this the 26th day of February 2019.

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER :

1)Ex.W-1 Dt.31-12-2014Proceedings of the Depot Manager, Tirupati.

9

2)Ex.W-2Dt.-BAC report.

3)Ex.W-3Dt.8-7-2016ProceedingsoftheRegional Manager, Tirupati.

4)Ex.W-4Dt.28-6-2017Proceedings of the Executive Director, Nellore.

5)Ex.W-5Dt.20-12-2017Circular No.PA-27/2017 of APSRTC.

6)Ex.W-6 Dt.25-7-2018Circular No.PD-20/2018 of APSRTC.

7)Ex.W-7Dt.12-9-2018Circular No.PD-33/2018 of APSRTC.

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.14-8-2014Report of the ATM/CBS, Tirupati.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.14-8-2014Statement of the Petitioner.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.15-8-2014Report of the CI, CBS, Tirupati.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.-Breath Alcohol Testing Report (Original & Xerox).

5)Ex.M-5Dt.22-8-2014Preliminary enquiry report.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.25-8-2014Charge sheet.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.25-8-2014Suspension order.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.1-9-2014Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.24-11-2014Domestic enquiry report.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.26-11-2014Objections called about enquiry.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.-Acknowledgment of the Petitioner.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.5-12-2014Objections submitted by the Petitioner.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.10-12-2014Show cause notice of removal from service.

14)Ex.M-14Dt.27-12-2014Explanation submitted by the Petitioner.

15)Ex.M-15Dt.31-12-2014Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

16)Ex.M-16Dt.31-12-2015Proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

17)Ex.M-17Dt.8-7-2016ProceedingsoftheReview Authority.

18)Ex.M-18Dt.28-6-2017ProceedingsoftheAppeal Authority.

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Compared by: Read by :

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt. K.Lalitha Kumari Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

TUESDAY THE 26 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

I.D.No.140/2017

Between:

D.Ravi, Aged 52 years, E.No.512378, Ex.RTC Driver, S/o D.Naranayana, 3rd Street, D.No.285, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. … Workman/Petitioner

AND

1)The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Satyavedu Depot, Chittoor District.

2)The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

3)The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Tirupathi. Chittoor District.

4)The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Nellore Zone, Nellore. … Respondents/Management

This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondents and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 26-2-2019 before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri S.Chandrasekhara, Law officer for the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2-A (2) of the I.D Act to set aside the removal order under vide proceedings No.01/114(03)/2014-STVD dt.30-3- 2015 and as confirmed by the Respondent 2 & 3 are illegal, invalid and same may be set aside, direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back-wages and with all other attendant benefits and to grant such other relief as the Courts deemed to fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

2

2) Notice given to the Respondent. Law Officer filed a Memo dated 26-2-2019 stating that the Petitioner has consumed alcohol and found volume of 23 mg.,/100 ml., during the special breath analyzer check test at Puttur bus station on 17-10- 2014, there after he was removed from the service on 30-3-2015 under vide proceedings No.01/114(03)/2014-STVD, there after the Petitioner preferred appeal, same was rejected by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Tirupati on 18-5-2015. The

Regional Manager, Tirupati rejected the review appeal on 18-9-2015. The Executive

Director Nellore Zone, considered the same in mercy appeal on 10-1-2018 under proceedings No.SUP(P)/19(49)/2015-NZ and posted the Petitioner to Srikalahasti depot under vide orders E1/19(01)/2018 RM(T), dt.18-1-2018, along with the Memo order copy was filed . Notice given to the Petitioner's counsel.

3) Since the Petitioner filed this I.D No.140/2017 to set aside the removal Order dt.30-3-2015. Since the Petitioner was reinstated by the Executive Director, Nellore

Zone under mercy appeal, as the removal order was set aside by the Executive

Director, Nellore Zone, hence I.D.No.140/2017 became infracutuous, hence I.D is dismissed.

In the result, I.D.No.140/2017 is dismissed as infractutous.

Accordingly an award is passed.

Typed to my dictation on the Computer System by the incharge Steno-Typist corrected and pronounced by me on this the 26th day of February 2019.

Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Compared by: Read by: