Post Vacant

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT : GUNTUR

PRESENT : SRI K.A.P SWAMY, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRESIDING OFFICER

This the 13th Day August 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE : 106/2006

Between :

Sk. Jani Basha, Ex.Conductor, APSRTC, C/o.Bismilla Chicken Centre, Rama Talkies Line, Macherla, Guntur District.PETITIONER

AND

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Macherla Depot, Macherla, Guntur District.RESPONDENT

This petition coming before me upon perusing the material papers on record, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.V.Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent, the court passed the following :

A W A R D

This petition is filed under Sec.2-A(2) of the I.D.Act by one Sk.Jani Basha, Ex.conductor of

APSRTC, Macherla Depot seeking reinstatement with continuity service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

Petition averments are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 20-8-1990. While, he was working at Macherla Depot, the first respondent issued charge sheet dated 13-5-1998 as per the report of STI dated 10-5-1998, with the following charges :

Charge No.1 :

For having sold out 22 tickets 160/614800 to 822 of Rs.3/- denomination in the SR No.

8309388 while performing 14.45Hrs. V.P South Service on 8-5-1998, you have shown the closing Number as 803 in the Way Bill No 7369476 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.

60/-, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

Charge No.2 :

For having sold out the entire ticket block No.060/12400 of Rs.4/- denomination vide SR

No.7844053 while performing 5-45 Hrs Chintapalli service but not shown any ticket issues

in the Way Bill 7369469 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.400/- which

constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of RTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

2

Charge No.3 :

For having sold out the entire ticket block No.060/124800 of Rs.4/- denomination vide SR No.

7847227 while performing 5-30 Hrs. Agraharam Service on 2-5-1998, but failed to show any ticket issues in the way Bill 7369473 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.400/-, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

Charge No 4 :

For having sold out 47 tickets in the ticket block No.049/616700 (700 to 747) of Rs.6/- denomination vide SR No.8309388 but failed to show any ticket issue in the Way Bill No.7369476 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.282/- while performing 14-45 Hrs. V/P South duty on 8-5-98 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC EMPS (Con) Reg.1963

Charge No.5 :

For having sold out 5 tickets of Rs.12/- denomination in the ticket block No.003/811094 to 099 vide SR No.7840231 while performing 14 Hrs Miryalagudem service on 27-4-1998, but not shown in the Way Bill No.7369471 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.60/- which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC EMPS (Con) Reg.1963.

Charge No.6

For having sold out 10 tickets of Rs.8-50/- denomination in the ticket block No.010/384238 to 248 vide SR No.830994 while performing 13-30 Hrs Madugula Night out on 7-5-98, but you have not shown in the Way Bill No.7369476 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.85/- which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC EMPS (Con) Reg.1963.

Charge No.7 :

For having misappropriated the Corporation Revenues to a tune of Rs.1287/- by way of non accountancy of tickets in the Way Bills even after sold out the tickets in the SR s which constitute misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC EmPS (Con) Reg. 1963.

The petitioner submit that on 8-5-1998 at14-45 Hrs.he performed Macherla-VP South duty under Tray No.137 and correctly entered the sale of tickets in SR No.8309388 and remitted the bus cash. The concerned receiving ADC verified the SR and other equipment including Way Bill and received the sale proceeds. No irregularity was pointed out at the time of receipt of cash. But later, pointed out that there was no proper entries in the Way Bill. The SR clearly shows the sale of tickets.

3

After pointing out the irregularity, the petitioner paid the difference of cash on the next day. Therefore, it was only irregularity and it does not amount to any temporary misappropriation of corporation money. It was only clerical error.

The petitioner further submits that the acts of remitting bus cash loss and recouping the same afterwords are due to genuine reasons only but not due to any malafide intention of defrauding the revenues of the respondent corporation or misappropriating the Corporation money during the period of four months.

It is further submitted that the wife of the petitioner was under treatment at APSRTC Tarnaka

Hospital for chronic suffering due to consumption of heavy dose of tablets and became unconscious.

The Police took the petitioner into custody for interrogation due to suspicion on him as his wife had attempted to suicide. His uncle was also suddenly killed in village which was shocking event which lead him to mental agony.

It is submitted that the findings of the Inquire officer are erroneous, perverse and one sided.

Based on the erroneous findings of the Inquiry Officer, the respondent removed the petitioner from the service by his order Dated 12-3-1999. The punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner prays this court to set aside the order of removal dated12-3-1999 passed by the respondent and further prays to direct the respondent to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

2) The respondent filed counter in which the averments in brief are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed as Casual Conductor on daily wage basis on 20-8-1990 and as regular conductor with effect from 29-8-1991. During his service period, he was censured once, his annual increment was deferred twice and removed from service twice including the present one. Thus, he is bereft of any clean record of service. The petitioner was attached to Macherla Depot during the relevant period.

It is submitted that the Senior Traffic Inspector, Macherla Depot in his report dated 10-5-98 reported that the petitioner was booked to perform the duty of 14-45 Hrs VP South on 8-5-98 and the petitioner was supplied with his permanent tray No.137. At the time of receiving cash, the receiving

ADC has observed that the Way Bill No.7369476 dated 8-5-98 was altered at many denomination. The 4

STI scrutinized the Way Bills, SR s and detected that an amount of Rs.1287/- was misappropriated by means of without accounting the tickets in the Way Bills after sold out the tickets in the S.Rs.

It is submitted that basing on the report of the STI, Macherla Depot, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 13-5-1998 and on the same day, a Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with the charges as mentioned in the petition.

It is submitted that as the explanation if the petitioner to the charge sheet was not convincing, the respondent in order to provide further opportunity to the petitioner, nominated the Chief Inspector (Inquiries) Regional Manager's Office, Guntur to conduct a detailed Domestic Inquiry.

It is further submitted that the inquiry officer provided all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case during inquiry and on the basis of evidence available on record, submitted his report holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved.

It is submitted that the Accounts Officer, Guntur in his report dated 10-7-1998 informed that the

Audit Inspector, Accounts Officer's Office, Guntur had verified the Way Bills for the period from 14-1-1998 to 11-4-1998 and noticed that the petitioner was in the habi of showing lesser lnumber of the tickets in the Way Bills than that of the actual number of tickets sold and misappropriated the

Corporation Revenues to an extent of Rs.3,883-25Ps. Based on the report of the Accounts Officer,

Guntur, the respondent framed the following Charge against the petitioner vide Charge sheet dated 24-8-1998.

Charge :

For having failed to account correct number of tickets sold and shown lesser number of the tickets actually sold in the Way Bill and defrauded the Corporation Revenues to the extent of

Rs.3,883-25Ps/- during the last four months, which is a misconduct on your part under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

It is submitted that as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, again the respondent in order to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case ordered for detailed

Domestic Inquiry by appointing Chief Inspector (Inquiries), Regional Manager's Office as Inquiry

Officer.

It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer provided fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend case and ;on the basis of evidence available on record, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner has proved.

5

It is submitted that the respondent communicated the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner calling for his remarks and the petitioner submitted his comments/remarks on it.

It is further submitted that the respondent after perusing the remarks of the petitioner together with the entire evidence available on record came to a provisional conclusion that the charge leveled against the petitioner stand proved and that the penalty of removal from the service is fit and proper to be imposed on the petitioner, as such show cause notice of removal from service was issued to the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted his explanation.

It is submitted that the respondent after perusing the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause notice of removal and other available material on record, finally removed the petitioner from the service by his order dated 12-3-1999.

It is submitted that the the Appeal and Review petitions filed by the petitioner were considered and the same were rejected on merits by the concerned authorities. Since the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved and the proved charges constitute severe misconduct which involves misappropriation, this respondent prays this court to dismiss this petition without granting any relief.

3)No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner.

No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.M1 to M28 are marked on behalf of respondent.

Heard both sides.

Petitioner's Counsel filed written arguments.

The points for consideration in this case are :

1)Whether, the punishment of removal of the petitioner passed by the respondent by his order dated 12-3-1999 is legal and valid ?

2)If not to what relief, the petitioner is entitled ?

4) Point No.1 : The Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent contends that the petitioner while performing his duty and at the time of remitting cash to the receiving ADC altered the Way Bill and many denominations in the SR and as per scrutiny of Way Bills and Statistical Returns by the Senior

Traffic Inspector, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,287/- without accounting the tickets in the Way Bills after sold out the tickets in the SR. The said fact was also admitted by the petitioner in his explanation to the charge sheet as well as his own admission during the Domestic Inquiry. A

Therefore, the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved and as the proved charges constitutes 6 grave misconduct which involves misappropriation of funds of the respondent corporation by the petitioner, this respondent prays this court to dismissing this petition without granting any relief.

On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel contends that the petitioner's wife was under the treatment at APSRTC Hospital for chronic suffering due to consumption of tablets and she became unconscious. He further submitted that Police taken the petitioner into custody for interrogation due to suspension on him that his wife attempted to suicide and at the same time, his uncle was suddenly killed in village which was shocking event to his life which led to mental agony.

Petitioner's counsel further vehemently contended that only due to the above reasons, there might have delay in remitting bus cash and the acts in remitting the bus cash less and recouping the same afterwords are due to genuine reasons only but not due to any malafide intention of defrauding the revenues of the respondent Corporation. Therefore, he prays this court to take a lenient view by imposing any lesser punishment by setting aside the removal order of the respondent dated 12-3-1999.

Perused the entire documents and material papers on record. Ex.M13 is statement of the petitioner during the Domestic Inquiry. The petitioner admitted the entire charges but pleaded that due to his mental condition, he committed the above irregularities mentioned in the charges.

In support of placing the defense version of the petitioner, the petitioner's counsel contends that he is innocent and due to his mistake and negligence, the remittance of cash shown as per the charges is delayed. It is further contended that it is not a misappropriation or misconduct committed by the petitioner and it is vehemently argued that it is only irregularity and there was no loss caused to the respondent corporation.

But during the Domestic Inquiry one G.V.Ramaiah T.I-III, Guntur and one Sri B.Pitchaiah, the

A.D.C of Macherla Depot were examined on behalf of the respondent. They categorically stated the misconducts committed by the petitioner as per the charges. The Inquiry Officer provided opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the above witnesses. But the petitioner does not wish to cross examine the said witnesses.

Later, the petitioner was examined during Domestic Inquiry under Ex.M13. The petitioner admitted he entire charges but pleaded that due to his mental condition, he committed the above irregularities as mentioned in the charges.

7

The Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent contends that since the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved and as the proved charges constitute grave misconduct which involves misappropriation of revenue of respondent corporation, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service passed by the respondent by its order Dt.12-3-1999 is legal, valid and proportionate to the proved charges and this court has to uphold the said punishment imposed against the petitioner by dismissing this petition.

On the other hand the petitioner's Counsel vehemently contended that only due to unavoidable circumstances that is petitioner's wife under went treatment at APSRTC Tarnaka Hospital for chronic suffering due to consumption of heavy dose of tablets and became unconscious and also custody of the petitioner by the police for interrogation on suspicion on the petitioner with regard to attempt to commit suicide which were shocking events in his life which lead to mental agony of the petitioner.

The petitioner's Counsel further vehemently contended that the act of remitting bus cash less and recouping the same afterwords are not misappropriation or defrauding the revenues of the respondent corporation and further strongly contended that even if the findings on misconduct are justified, while imposing punishment on the petitioner, the disciplinary authority must look the situation and circumstances which lead to late remittance of cash by the petitioner and then impose appropriate punishment and further contends that the Labour Court has power to reverse the findings of the Disciplinary Authority even if the findings on the misconduct are justified, by invoking Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

In support of his contention, the petitioner's Counsel relied on a Decision reported in

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, ADILABAD AND ANOTHER VS. E.RAGA REDDY AND

ANOTHER, Wherein the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows :

“INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, Sec 11-A – Interpretation of powers of Labour

Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section 11-A – Removal of workman (Conductor) by

APSRTC for misconduct after holding disciplinary inquiry – Order challenged by

workman in Labour Court – Power of Labour Court is akin to that of appellate Court –

Labour Court has power and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence adduced in the

Domestic Inquiry and substitute its own finding even in cases where workman concedes

8

the validity of Domestic Inquiry – It can reverse the findings of the Disciplinary authority -Even if findings on misconduct are justified, Labour Court has power to hold dismissal as unjustified and award appropriate and lesser punishment in the circumstances of a particular case”.

The above Decision of the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh is aptly applicable to the present case also. In the present case also during the Domestic Inquiry as well as inquiry in the court, charges leveled against the petitioner have proved. But the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment of removal against the petitioner, has to take into consideration the circumstances which lead to the petitioner for committing the above irregularities. Therefore, in view of the above Decision of the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this court has power to hold dismissal as unjustified and award appropriate and lesser punishment in the circumstances of this case by invoking Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it is a fit case for exercising my discretion under Sec. 11-A of the I.D Act.. Therefore, I hold that the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved, but the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service passed by the respondent by his order dated 12-3-1999 is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges. I answer the Point No.1 accordingly.

5) Point No.2 : This petition is partly allowed. The order of removal of the petitioner from the service dated 12-3-1999 passed by the respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner as Afresh conductor by placing minimum Time Scale. The petitioner is not entitled to back wages, not entitled to continuity of service and not entitled to attendant benefits. Award is passed accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Office Superintendent who discharges duties of Senior Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th Day of August 2013.

//Sd XXX//

PRESIDING OFFICER

LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner.

No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent.

9

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.M1 :Statistical Returns (8 in number) relating to different dates

ExM2 : Way Bill. Ex.M3 : Duplicate Way Bill

Ex.M4: Copy of Way Bills (2 in number)

Ex.M5: Report of STI along with statements

Ex.M6 & M7: Suspension Order and Charge Sheet

Ex.M8: Explanation of petitioner to the charge sheet

Ex.M9: Letter of respondent nominating Inquiry Officer

Ex.M10to M13: Statements of witnesses during inquiry

Ex.M14 : Domestic Inquiry Report

Ex.M15: Statements showing unaccounted tickets by the petitioner

Ex.M16: Letter of Accounts Officer, Guntur, Ex.M17 : Charge sheet

Ex.M18 and M19: Statements of witnesses during Inquiry

Ex.M20 : Inquiry Report. Ex.M21 : Lr of respondent to petitioner for comments on inquiry report

Ex.M22: Remarks of petitioner on inquiry report.

Ex.M23 :Show cause notice of removal

Ex.M24: Explanation of petitioner to S.C Notice of removal

Ex.M25 : Removal proceedings, Ex.M26 & 27: Appeal and Review Proceedings

Ex.M28 : Photostat copy of Service record of the petitioner.

//Sd XXX//

PRESIDING OFFICER

LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR

// TRUE COPY //

PRESIDING OFFICER

LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT : GUNTUR

PRESENT : SRI K.A.P SWAMY, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRESIDING OFFICER

This the 13th Day August 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE : 106/2006

Between :

Sk. Jani Basha, Ex.Conductor, APSRTC, C/o.Bismilla Chicken Centre, Rama Talkies Line, Macherla, Guntur District.PETITIONER

AND

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Macherla Depot, Macherla, Guntur District.RESPONDENT

This petition coming before me upon perusing the material papers on record, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.V.Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent, the court passed the following :

A W A R D

This petition is filed under Sec.2-A(2) of the I.D.Act by one Sk.Jani Basha, Ex.conductor of

APSRTC, Macherla Depot seeking reinstatement with continuity service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

Petition averments are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 20-8-1990. While, he was working at Macherla Depot, the first respondent issued charge sheet dated 13-5-1998 as per the report of STI dated 10-5-1998, with the following charges :

Charge No.1 :

For having sold out 22 tickets 160/614800 to 822 of Rs.3/- denomination in the SR No.

8309388 while performing 14.45Hrs. V.P South Service on 8-5-1998, you have shown the closing Number as 803 in the Way Bill No 7369476 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.

60/-, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

Charge No.2 :

For having sold out the entire ticket block No.060/12400 of Rs.4/- denomination vide SR

No.7844053 while performing 5-45 Hrs Chintapalli service but not shown any ticket issues

in the Way Bill 7369469 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.400/- which

constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of RTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

2

Charge No.3 :

For having sold out the entire ticket block No.060/124800 of Rs.4/- denomination vide SR No.

7847227 while performing 5-30 Hrs. Agraharam Service on 2-5-1998, but failed to show any ticket issues in the way Bill 7369473 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.400/-, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

Charge No 4 :

For having sold out 47 tickets in the ticket block No.049/616700 (700 to 747) of Rs.6/- denomination vide SR No.8309388 but failed to show any ticket issue in the Way Bill No.7369476 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.282/- while performing 14-45 Hrs. V/P South duty on 8-5-98 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC EMPS (Con) Reg.1963

Charge No.5 :

For having sold out 5 tickets of Rs.12/- denomination in the ticket block No.003/811094 to 099 vide SR No.7840231 while performing 14 Hrs Miryalagudem service on 27-4-1998, but not shown in the Way Bill No.7369471 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.60/- which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC EMPS (Con) Reg.1963.

Charge No.6

For having sold out 10 tickets of Rs.8-50/- denomination in the ticket block No.010/384238 to 248 vide SR No.830994 while performing 13-30 Hrs Madugula Night out on 7-5-98, but you have not shown in the Way Bill No.7369476 and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.85/- which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC EMPS (Con) Reg.1963.

Charge No.7 :

For having misappropriated the Corporation Revenues to a tune of Rs.1287/- by way of non accountancy of tickets in the Way Bills even after sold out the tickets in the SR s which constitute misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC EmPS (Con) Reg. 1963.

The petitioner submit that on 8-5-1998 at14-45 Hrs.he performed Macherla-VP South duty under Tray No.137 and correctly entered the sale of tickets in SR No.8309388 and remitted the bus cash. The concerned receiving ADC verified the SR and other equipment including Way Bill and received the sale proceeds. No irregularity was pointed out at the time of receipt of cash. But later, pointed out that there was no proper entries in the Way Bill. The SR clearly shows the sale of tickets.

3

After pointing out the irregularity, the petitioner paid the difference of cash on the next day. Therefore, it was only irregularity and it does not amount to any temporary misappropriation of corporation money. It was only clerical error.

The petitioner further submits that the acts of remitting bus cash loss and recouping the same afterwords are due to genuine reasons only but not due to any malafide intention of defrauding the revenues of the respondent corporation or misappropriating the Corporation money during the period of four months.

It is further submitted that the wife of the petitioner was under treatment at APSRTC Tarnaka

Hospital for chronic suffering due to consumption of heavy dose of tablets and became unconscious.

The Police took the petitioner into custody for interrogation due to suspicion on him as his wife had attempted to suicide. His uncle was also suddenly killed in village which was shocking event which lead him to mental agony.

It is submitted that the findings of the Inquire officer are erroneous, perverse and one sided.

Based on the erroneous findings of the Inquiry Officer, the respondent removed the petitioner from the service by his order Dated 12-3-1999. The punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner prays this court to set aside the order of removal dated12-3-1999 passed by the respondent and further prays to direct the respondent to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

2) The respondent filed counter in which the averments in brief are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed as Casual Conductor on daily wage basis on 20-8-1990 and as regular conductor with effect from 29-8-1991. During his service period, he was censured once, his annual increment was deferred twice and removed from service twice including the present one. Thus, he is bereft of any clean record of service. The petitioner was attached to Macherla Depot during the relevant period.

It is submitted that the Senior Traffic Inspector, Macherla Depot in his report dated 10-5-98 reported that the petitioner was booked to perform the duty of 14-45 Hrs VP South on 8-5-98 and the petitioner was supplied with his permanent tray No.137. At the time of receiving cash, the receiving

ADC has observed that the Way Bill No.7369476 dated 8-5-98 was altered at many denomination. The 4

STI scrutinized the Way Bills, SR s and detected that an amount of Rs.1287/- was misappropriated by means of without accounting the tickets in the Way Bills after sold out the tickets in the S.Rs.

It is submitted that basing on the report of the STI, Macherla Depot, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 13-5-1998 and on the same day, a Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with the charges as mentioned in the petition.

It is submitted that as the explanation if the petitioner to the charge sheet was not convincing, the respondent in order to provide further opportunity to the petitioner, nominated the Chief Inspector (Inquiries) Regional Manager's Office, Guntur to conduct a detailed Domestic Inquiry.

It is further submitted that the inquiry officer provided all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case during inquiry and on the basis of evidence available on record, submitted his report holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved.

It is submitted that the Accounts Officer, Guntur in his report dated 10-7-1998 informed that the

Audit Inspector, Accounts Officer's Office, Guntur had verified the Way Bills for the period from 14-1-1998 to 11-4-1998 and noticed that the petitioner was in the habi of showing lesser lnumber of the tickets in the Way Bills than that of the actual number of tickets sold and misappropriated the

Corporation Revenues to an extent of Rs.3,883-25Ps. Based on the report of the Accounts Officer,

Guntur, the respondent framed the following Charge against the petitioner vide Charge sheet dated 24-8-1998.

Charge :

For having failed to account correct number of tickets sold and shown lesser number of the tickets actually sold in the Way Bill and defrauded the Corporation Revenues to the extent of

Rs.3,883-25Ps/- during the last four months, which is a misconduct on your part under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

It is submitted that as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, again the respondent in order to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case ordered for detailed

Domestic Inquiry by appointing Chief Inspector (Inquiries), Regional Manager's Office as Inquiry

Officer.

It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer provided fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend case and ;on the basis of evidence available on record, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner has proved.

5

It is submitted that the respondent communicated the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner calling for his remarks and the petitioner submitted his comments/remarks on it.

It is further submitted that the respondent after perusing the remarks of the petitioner together with the entire evidence available on record came to a provisional conclusion that the charge leveled against the petitioner stand proved and that the penalty of removal from the service is fit and proper to be imposed on the petitioner, as such show cause notice of removal from service was issued to the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted his explanation.

It is submitted that the respondent after perusing the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause notice of removal and other available material on record, finally removed the petitioner from the service by his order dated 12-3-1999.

It is submitted that the the Appeal and Review petitions filed by the petitioner were considered and the same were rejected on merits by the concerned authorities. Since the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved and the proved charges constitute severe misconduct which involves misappropriation, this respondent prays this court to dismiss this petition without granting any relief.

3)No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner.

No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.M1 to M28 are marked on behalf of respondent.

Heard both sides.

Petitioner's Counsel filed written arguments.

The points for consideration in this case are :

1)Whether, the punishment of removal of the petitioner passed by the respondent by his order dated 12-3-1999 is legal and valid ?

2)If not to what relief, the petitioner is entitled ?

4) Point No.1 : The Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent contends that the petitioner while performing his duty and at the time of remitting cash to the receiving ADC altered the Way Bill and many denominations in the SR and as per scrutiny of Way Bills and Statistical Returns by the Senior

Traffic Inspector, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,287/- without accounting the tickets in the Way Bills after sold out the tickets in the SR. The said fact was also admitted by the petitioner in his explanation to the charge sheet as well as his own admission during the Domestic Inquiry. A

Therefore, the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved and as the proved charges constitutes 6 grave misconduct which involves misappropriation of funds of the respondent corporation by the petitioner, this respondent prays this court to dismissing this petition without granting any relief.

On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel contends that the petitioner's wife was under the treatment at APSRTC Hospital for chronic suffering due to consumption of tablets and she became unconscious. He further submitted that Police taken the petitioner into custody for interrogation due to suspension on him that his wife attempted to suicide and at the same time, his uncle was suddenly killed in village which was shocking event to his life which led to mental agony.

Petitioner's counsel further vehemently contended that only due to the above reasons, there might have delay in remitting bus cash and the acts in remitting the bus cash less and recouping the same afterwords are due to genuine reasons only but not due to any malafide intention of defrauding the revenues of the respondent Corporation. Therefore, he prays this court to take a lenient view by imposing any lesser punishment by setting aside the removal order of the respondent dated 12-3-1999.

Perused the entire documents and material papers on record. Ex.M13 is statement of the petitioner during the Domestic Inquiry. The petitioner admitted the entire charges but pleaded that due to his mental condition, he committed the above irregularities mentioned in the charges.

In support of placing the defense version of the petitioner, the petitioner's counsel contends that he is innocent and due to his mistake and negligence, the remittance of cash shown as per the charges is delayed. It is further contended that it is not a misappropriation or misconduct committed by the petitioner and it is vehemently argued that it is only irregularity and there was no loss caused to the respondent corporation.

But during the Domestic Inquiry one G.V.Ramaiah T.I-III, Guntur and one Sri B.Pitchaiah, the

A.D.C of Macherla Depot were examined on behalf of the respondent. They categorically stated the misconducts committed by the petitioner as per the charges. The Inquiry Officer provided opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the above witnesses. But the petitioner does not wish to cross examine the said witnesses.

Later, the petitioner was examined during Domestic Inquiry under Ex.M13. The petitioner admitted he entire charges but pleaded that due to his mental condition, he committed the above irregularities as mentioned in the charges.

7

The Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent contends that since the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved and as the proved charges constitute grave misconduct which involves misappropriation of revenue of respondent corporation, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service passed by the respondent by its order Dt.12-3-1999 is legal, valid and proportionate to the proved charges and this court has to uphold the said punishment imposed against the petitioner by dismissing this petition.

On the other hand the petitioner's Counsel vehemently contended that only due to unavoidable circumstances that is petitioner's wife under went treatment at APSRTC Tarnaka Hospital for chronic suffering due to consumption of heavy dose of tablets and became unconscious and also custody of the petitioner by the police for interrogation on suspicion on the petitioner with regard to attempt to commit suicide which were shocking events in his life which lead to mental agony of the petitioner.

The petitioner's Counsel further vehemently contended that the act of remitting bus cash less and recouping the same afterwords are not misappropriation or defrauding the revenues of the respondent corporation and further strongly contended that even if the findings on misconduct are justified, while imposing punishment on the petitioner, the disciplinary authority must look the situation and circumstances which lead to late remittance of cash by the petitioner and then impose appropriate punishment and further contends that the Labour Court has power to reverse the findings of the Disciplinary Authority even if the findings on the misconduct are justified, by invoking Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

In support of his contention, the petitioner's Counsel relied on a Decision reported in

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, ADILABAD AND ANOTHER VS. E.RAGA REDDY AND

ANOTHER, Wherein the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows :

“INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, Sec 11-A – Interpretation of powers of Labour

Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section 11-A – Removal of workman (Conductor) by

APSRTC for misconduct after holding disciplinary inquiry – Order challenged by

workman in Labour Court – Power of Labour Court is akin to that of appellate Court –

Labour Court has power and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence adduced in the

Domestic Inquiry and substitute its own finding even in cases where workman concedes

8

the validity of Domestic Inquiry – It can reverse the findings of the Disciplinary authority -Even if findings on misconduct are justified, Labour Court has power to hold dismissal as unjustified and award appropriate and lesser punishment in the circumstances of a particular case”.

The above Decision of the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh is aptly applicable to the present case also. In the present case also during the Domestic Inquiry as well as inquiry in the court, charges leveled against the petitioner have proved. But the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment of removal against the petitioner, has to take into consideration the circumstances which lead to the petitioner for committing the above irregularities. Therefore, in view of the above Decision of the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this court has power to hold dismissal as unjustified and award appropriate and lesser punishment in the circumstances of this case by invoking Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it is a fit case for exercising my discretion under Sec. 11-A of the I.D Act.. Therefore, I hold that the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved, but the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service passed by the respondent by his order dated 12-3-1999 is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges. I answer the Point No.1 accordingly.

5) Point No.2 : This petition is partly allowed. The order of removal of the petitioner from the service dated 12-3-1999 passed by the respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner as Afresh conductor by placing minimum Time Scale. The petitioner is not entitled to back wages, not entitled to continuity of service and not entitled to attendant benefits. Award is passed accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Office Superintendent who discharges duties of Senior Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th Day of August 2013.

//Sd XXX//

PRESIDING OFFICER

LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner.

No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent.

9

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.M1 :Statistical Returns (8 in number) relating to different dates

ExM2 : Way Bill. Ex.M3 : Duplicate Way Bill

Ex.M4: Copy of Way Bills (2 in number)

Ex.M5: Report of STI along with statements

Ex.M6 & M7: Suspension Order and Charge Sheet

Ex.M8: Explanation of petitioner to the charge sheet

Ex.M9: Letter of respondent nominating Inquiry Officer

Ex.M10to M13: Statements of witnesses during inquiry

Ex.M14 : Domestic Inquiry Report

Ex.M15: Statements showing unaccounted tickets by the petitioner

Ex.M16: Letter of Accounts Officer, Guntur, Ex.M17 : Charge sheet

Ex.M18 and M19: Statements of witnesses during Inquiry

Ex.M20 : Inquiry Report. Ex.M21 : Lr of respondent to petitioner for comments on inquiry report

Ex.M22: Remarks of petitioner on inquiry report.

Ex.M23 :Show cause notice of removal

Ex.M24: Explanation of petitioner to S.C Notice of removal

Ex.M25 : Removal proceedings, Ex.M26 & 27: Appeal and Review Proceedings

Ex.M28 : Photostat copy of Service record of the petitioner.

//Sd XXX//

PRESIDING OFFICER

LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR

// TRUE COPY //

PRESIDING OFFICER

LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT : GUNTUR

PRESENT : SRI K.A.P SWAMY, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRESIDING OFFICER

This he 21st Day of August 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE : 119/2006

Between :

Y.S.R.K Prasad, Ex.Conductor, E.352233, APSRTC, Gudivada Depot, Gudivada, Krishna District.PETITIONER

AND 1)The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gudivada Depot, Gudivada, Krishna District, 2)The Regional Manager, APSRTC,a VijayawadaRESPONDENTS

This petition coming before me upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.V.Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Law Officer of APSRTC for respondents, the court passed the following :

A W A R D

This petition is filed under Sec.2-A(2) of the I.D Act by one Y.S.R.K Prasad, Ex. Conductor,

APSRTC, Gudivada Depot seeking reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

Petition averments are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed as conductor in APSRTC in the year 1989. While he was working as conductor in first respondent corporation, he performed duty on 7-2-2004 on the route Kalidindi to

Korukallu, his bus was checked by the checking officials of ZES/Vijayawada at Stage No.8 Korukallu and detected certain cash and ticket irregularities and issued a Charge Memo. Basing on the allegations, the first respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 13-2-2004 and on the same day, a charge sheet was issued to him with the following charges :

Charge No 1 :

For having collected an amount of Rs.3/- from the three individual passengers (totaling Rs.

9/-) boarded at Kalidindi bound for Korukallu ex stages 9 to 8 towards fare charges and failed to issue tickets to them while you were performing your duty with vehicle No.AP 10z 2992 on the route Kalidindi-Korukallu on 7-2-2004 which constitute misconduct under Reg.28(ix-a) of

APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

2

Charge No.2 :

For having closed the ticket Nos. of Rs.4/-, 6/- and 7/- denomination tickets and kept blank remaining tickets in the S.R while you were performing your duty on the route Kalidindi-

Korukallu on 7-2-2004, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

Charge No 3 :

For having punched wrongly on Rs.3/- denomination ticket Nos. from 056/339140 to 149 on the Stages 8 to 8 in stead of 9 to 8, while you were performing your l;duty on the route

Kalidindi to Korukallu constitutes mis conduct interms of Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. With regard to first charge, he stated that while he was operating his services as conductor on the route Kalidindi to Korukallu on 7-2-2004, a batch of three passenger boarded into the bus at Kalidindi and they occupied various seats in the bus. When he (petitioner) asked them to take tickets, the said three passengers stated that their tickets were taken by the other passenger. Actually, he had not collected Rs/.3/- each from the said passengers and he had not issued tickets to them.

With regard to second charge, the petitioner stated in his explanation that while he was under closing the SR against stage No.8, the TTIs checked his bus and took S.R. Hence he had not closed all the denominations in the S.R,

With regard to the third charge, the petitioner stated in his explanation that while he was punching on Rs.3/- denomination tickets, erroneously he had punched in between 9 and 8 to 8 in stead of 9 and 8. It was purely by mistake, but not with any intention.

It is submitted that without considering the explanation of the petitioner to the charge sheet the

Inquiry officer erroneously came to a conclusion that charges leveled against him have proved and submitted his report to the first respondent.

It is further submitted that based on the erroneous findings of the Inquiry Officer, the first respondent removed the petitioner from the service by his order dated 22-7-2004. The petitioner further submits that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the removal orders passed by the first respondent were grossly disproportionate to the gravity of offense and the petitioner prays this court 3 to set aside the removal order of the first respondent and further prays to direct this respondent to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

2)On the other hand the respondents filed counter in which the averments in brief are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Casual Conductor on daily wage basis on 19-1-1989 and as regular conductor on 28-7-1989. During his service period he was censured on 7 occasions, his annual increment deferred on 13 times and removed from the service in the present case. Thus, he is bereft of any clean record of service. The petitioner was attached to Gudivada Depot during the relevant period.

It is submitted that the Checking Officials of ZES, Vijayawada have exercised check on the petitioner on 7-2-2004 while he was conducting the vehicle on route Kalidindid to Kurukollu. The check took place at Stage No.8 that is Korukollu at about 19-15 Hrs. During the check certain serious cash and ticket irregularities committed by the petitioner were detected by them.

It is submitted that the petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.3/- each from three individual passengers (Rs.9/-) who boarded the bus at Kalidindi and bound for Korukollu ex.stages 9 to 8 towards fare but failed to issue tickets to them.. The petitioner had closed only ticket numbers of Rs.4/-, Rs/6/- and Rs/7/- denomination tickets and kept blank remaining tickets in the service S.R. The petitioner also punched wrongly on tickets of Rs.3/- denominations on the stages 8 to 8 in stead of 9 to 8 stages, which were found at the time of alighting passengers.

It is submitted that a Charge Memo was issued by the checking officials to the petitioner detailing the irregularities. Basing on the irregularities enumerated in the Charge Memo, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 13-2-2004 and on the same day, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with the charges as mentioned in the petition.

It is submitted that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the charge sheet. The first respondent in order to provide further opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case ordered for a detailed Domestic Inquiry by appointing the Asst. Manager (Inquiries), Regional Manager's Office as

Inquiry Officer.

It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer provided a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case during the inquiry and submitted his report to the first respondent holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved.

4

It is submitted that the first respondent communicated the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner calling for remarks for which the petitioner submitted his remarks.

It is further submitted that the first respondent after perusing the remarks of the petitioner and other available material on record, came to a conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved and that penalty of removal of the petitioner from the service is fit and proper to be imposed and accordingly, a show cause notice of removal was issued to the petitioner for which, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation.

The first respondent after perusing the entire material available on record, passed final orders of removal of the petitioner by its proceedings dated 2-7-2004

It is submitted that The Appeal and Review Petitions filed by the petitioner were considered and the same were rejected by the concerned authorities on merits. As the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved and the proved charges constitute grave misconduct, this respondents prays to dismiss this Petition without granting any relief.

3)No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner

No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.M1 to M25 are marked on behalf of respondents.

Heard both sides.

Petitioner's counsel also filed written arguments.

The points for consideration in this case are :

1)Whether the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved ? If so, whether the punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service passed by the first respondent by his order dated 2-7-2004 is legal and valid ?

2)If not to what relief, the petitioner is entitled ?

4) Point No.1 : The Law Officer of APSRTC for respondents contends that the petitioner failed to issue tickets of Rs.3/- denomination each to three individual passengers even after collecting requisite fare from them and wrongly punched on Rs.3/- denomination tickets as 8 and 8 in stead of 8 and 9 and further closed the SR without completing the ticket issues. The Law Officer of APSRTC further contends that the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved during the Domestic Inquiry. As the proved charges constitute grave misconduct which involves loss of revenue to the corporation by not collecting fares from the passengers, this respondent prays this court to uphold the action taken by 5 the first respondent in removing the petitioner from the service by dismissing this Petition.

On the other hand, it is the vehement contention of the petitioner's counsel that the three passengers in question boarded the bus as batch at Kalidindi and occupied different seats in the bus and when he asked for tickets one passenger said the other passenger will take tickets in the mean while check took place. Therefore, he did not collect the fare from the said alleged passengers in question or issued tickets to them. With regard to second and third charges the petitioner by ;mistake wrongly punched on Rs.3/- denomination tickets as 8 and 8 in stead of 8 and 9 and while he was closing the SR, the checking officials exercised check by confiscating his SR. There was no loss of revenues to the

Corporation and .therefore, prays this court to take a lenient view by setting aside the Order of removal passed by the first respondent.

Perused the entire material on record. It is an admitted fact during inquiry by the petitioner with regard to Charge No.1 that he has not collected Rs.3/- each from the three passengers totaling Rs.9/-.

At the same time, he admitted that he has not issued tickets to the said passengers in question.

During submission of arguments, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the above three individual passengers boarded into bus at Kalidindi while he was issuing tickets to the other passengers and after their getting into the bus, they have occupied at various places in the bus. It is submitted that the above three passengers belonged to a batch but not individuals. When this petitioner asked them to take tickets, they said that their tickets were taken by the other passengers. He denied that the petitioner have collected Rs.9/- from the said passengers and failed to issue tickets to them as alleged in

Charge No.1. The petitioner's Counsel further contended that the checking officials without verifying the bus cash came to a conclusion that this petitioner has collected Rs.3/- each from the said three passengers was not at all proved for the reason that there was no verification of bus cash. The petitioner's counsel during the arguments vehemently contended that in case had the checking authorities verified the bus cash and in case if they found excess cash of Rs.9/-, it can be presumed that there is a misconduct on the part of the conductor for not issuing tickets having collected Rs.9/- from the three passengers and from the beginning it is the contention of the petitioner that this charge was wrongly framed without any basis and without any verification of bus cash. Therefore, there is no material to come to a conclusion to say that Charge No.1 is proved.

6

In further, while considering the material available on record with regard to Charge No.1, as seen Ex.M10 spot statement of the passenger whose name is not mentioned, it shows that three passengers have boarded into the bus at Kalidindi bound to Korukallu and they have paid Rs.9/- to the conductor but the conductor has not issued tickets to them. Under which, a thumb impression was obtained by name Balijigadda Paul of Korukallu. But neither the signatures nor the thumb impressions of the other two passengers were not taken and it was kept blank. This Ex.M10 was drafted by one

Passenger belonging to Vijayawada who was traveling at the time of check and his ticket number was mentioned as 019/168960 of Rs.14/- denomination ticket. But at the time of the Domestic Inquiry, neither the passenger nor the scribe of Ex.M10 were examined.

Another statement of a passenger who traveled in the bus was recorded and marked as Ex.M9.

In Ex.M0 it is mentioned that about ten passengers have boarded the bus at Kalindi to go to Korukallu.

They were ten people as a group and they have paid Rs.30/- (Rs.3/- each) and the conductor issued tickets to all of them. He mentioned the tickets as bearing No.036/339140 to 149. When the bus reached Korukallu, the checking officials entered the bus and verified the said tickets which was issued by the conductor.

Ex.M16 is statement of checking official during Domestic Inquiry. During his cross examination, this witness admitted that they have not verified the cash bag.

Considering the available records and the statements under Ex.M9, Ex.M10 and Domestic

Inquiry Statements of the petitioner under Ex.M15 and checking official under Ex.M16 , it is clear that the three passengers in question were traveling from Kalindi to Korukallu without tickets.

Now, the point to be consider is whether the petitioner has collected fare without issuing tickets.

As per the above discussion, there is no proof to show that he has collected Rs.9/- from the said three passengers in question. Up to that part, there is no irregularity committed by the petitioner. But the fact remains that the said three passengers were traveling without tickets. Therefore, allowing the passengers for traveling without tickets undoubtedly shows that it is a misconduct. But at the same time, it is not a grave misconduct for the reason that these three passengers have occupied seats at different places and when they were insisted to take tickets, it was said that the other passengers who boarded along with them have taken tickets. To substantiate and in support of this contention, as seen

Ex.M9, the checking officials have recorded statement of one passenger that as a group ten people have 7 taken tickets each for Rs.3/- (totaling Rs.30/-) from Kalidindi to Korukallu. Therefore, there is every chance for this conductor to presume that these passengers were belongs to that group who lhave taken ten tickets. Any how, as contended by the Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to verify each and every passenger whether they have obtained tickets or not.

Further, in view of the admission made by the petitioner during the Domestic Inquiry and as per his statement during the Inquiry due to mistake, he has not issued tickets to the three passengers.

Therefore, charge No.1 is partly proved.

With regard to Charge No.2 and 3, the petitioner admitted the charges in his statement during the Domestic Inquiry. But pleaded that the same was done due to mistake but not with any intention to defraud the corporation.

Having carefully observed the explanation given by the petitioner, it is clear that he has admitted his mistake of wrong punching and not closing the SR but there is no intention to defraud the revenues of the Corporation and to have a wrongful gain. But it is a sheer mistake since he is new to that route in that service. Any how, in view of his admission, Charge No.1 is partly proved and

Charges 2 and 3 are proved. But having heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel, this is a fit case to take a lenient view by invoking Sec.11-A of the I.D.Act. Therefore, I hold that Charge No.1 is partly proved and charges 2 and 3 are proved against the petitioner and at the same time I hold that the punishment of removal of the petitioner passed by the first respondent is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. I answer the point No.1 accordingly.

5) Point No.2 : This petition is partly allowed. The order of removal of the petitioner from the service passed by the first respondent dated 22-7-2004 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits but without back wages. Award is passed accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Office Superintendent who discharges duties of Senior Steno, corrected and pronounced by me this the 21st Day of August 2013.

//Sd. XXX //

PRESIDDING OFFICER

LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of petitioner.

No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.M1 toEx.M3 : Statistical Returns

Ex.M4 : Check sheet. Ex.M5 : Cover containing confiscated tickets.

Ex.M6 & Ex.M7 : Charge Memo and MTD 43/R

Ex.M8 to Ex.M10 Spot statement of petitioner and passengers

Ex.M11 : Spare Memo, Ex.M12 & M13 : Suspension order and charge sheet.

Ex.M14 : Lr of R1 nominating Inquiry Officer.

Ex.M15 & M16: Statements of witnesses during Inquiry.

Ex.M17 : Inquiry Report. Ex.M18 : Lr of R1 for remarks on inquiry report

Ex.M19 : Remarks of petitioner on inquiry report

Ex.M20 : Show cause notice of removal, Ex.M21 : explanation to SC notice of removal

Ex.M22 : Removal Proceedings

Ex.M23 & Ex.M24 : Appeal & Review Proceedings.

Ex.M25 : Photostat copy of Service record of the petitioner.

//Sd. XXX //

PRESIDDING OFFICER

LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR

// TRUE COPY //

PRESIDDING OFFICER

LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT : GUNTUR

PRESENT : SRI K.A.P SWAMY, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRESIDING OFFICER

This the 23rd Day of August 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE : 33/2009

Between :

M.Butchibabu, Conductor, APSRTC, E.91637, Auto Nagar Depot, VijayawadaCLAIMANT

AND

The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, VijayawadaRESPONDENT

This petition coming before me upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.V.Rao, Advocate for claimant and Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent, the court passed the following :

A W A R D

This is a reference made under Sec. 10-1(C) of the I.D Act. The reference is as follows :

“Whether, the action of Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada in imposing the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect to Sri M.Butchibabu,

Conductor, APSRTC, E.91637, Auto Nagar Depot, Vijayawada is justified ?

If Not, to what relief, the workman is entitled ?

Claimant filed claim statement in which the averments are as follows :

The claimant present working as Conductor in Auto Nagar Depot, Vijayawada. While he was working as conductor in Vijayawada Depot, he had performed duty on the route 11-30 Hrs

Pedakallepalli Service on 5-4-2006, his bus was checked by the checking officials and they issued a

Charge Memo to him.

It is submitted that based on the allegation, the Depot Manager, Vijayawada placed the claimant under suspension and issued Charge sheet on 12-4-2006 with the following Charges :

Charge No.1 :

For having punched ticket of Rs.14/- denomination bearing No.173/988536 in the Hand

Tray and failed to account the ticket in the SR while you were performing 11-30 Hrs

Pedakallepally service on 5-4-2006 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxii) of APSRTC

Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.

2

Charge No.2 :

For your non cooperation, misbehavior towards checking officials and instigated the passengers causing obstruction to perform their duty while you were conducting misconduct under Reg.28(viii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

Charge No.3 :

For your negligent attitude and proceeded some distance without taking back service SR and ticket account record from the checking officials even though they were continuing you to handover the STAR document from them, while you were performing duty on the service which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xiv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963

Charge No.4:

For causing much inconvenience to the traveling public during mid night by operating the which to and fro as per your own direction without following MTD 141 instructions which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963

The claimant submitted his explanation denying the charges. For Charge No.1 the claimant stated that while he was operating the service one passenger asked him to issue one ticket and further stated that he was a CAT card holder. Then the claimant removed Rs.14/- denomination ticket and asked the CAT Card holder to produce CAT Card. But the passenger had not shown the CAT Card.

Therefore, the claimant placed the said Rs.14/- denomination ticket on the ticket block with a rubber band and it was not punched and not accounted in the SR. Therefore, the claimant has not committed any misconduct and the Charge No.1 leveled against him was baseless and he denied the Charge.

With regard to Charge No.2, the claimant submitted in his explanation that the had cooperated with the checking officials at the time ;of check and the had not misbehaved towards the checking officials nor instigated the passengers causing obstruction to perform their duty. Hence the said charge leveled against the claimant is false.

With regard to Charge No.3, it is the submission of the claimant in his explanation that there was no negligence on his part . The checking Officials did not issue him STAR document. It is the duty of the checking Officials to issue SR to the claimant after completion of the check. The claimant collected the SR from the checking officials and performed his duty. There was no negligence on his part. The claimant denied this charge also.

3

With regard to Charge No.4, it is the submission of the claimant in his explanation to the Charge

Sheet that he had operated the service by following MTD 141 instructions. There was no loss of l;revenues to the Corporation nor any other inconvenience to the traveling public. Therefore the claimant denied this charge also.

It is submitted that without considering his explanation, The Depot Manager ordered for detailed Domestic Inquiry by appointing Assistant Manager (Inquiries), R.M's Office Vijayawada to conduct a detailed Inquiry. The Inquiry Officer without considering his explanation without giving sufficient opportunity, submitted report to the Depot Manager holding that charges leveled against the the claimant have proved.

It is submitted that by following routine formalities that is receipt of objections of the claimant on inquiry report and explanation to show cause notice, without any application of mind, the Depot

Manager, Vijayawada passed final Order Dt.26-8-2006 withholding annual inccrements of the claimant for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as Not on Duty.

The Appeal and Review Petitions filed by the claimant were rejected by the concerned authorities mechanically. Therefore, the claimant prays this court to set aside the Punishment Orders passed by the Depot Manager, Vijayawada Dated 26-5-2006.

2)Respondent filed counter in which the averments in brief are as follows :

It is submitted that the claimant while conducting the hired Bus No. AP 16x 6145 at 11-30 Hrs

Pedakallepalli service on 3-4-2006, the checking Officials of R.E.S, Machilipatnam exercised check and detected certain cash and ticket irregularities at Stage No.16 that is Challapalli. The TTIs found a punched ticket of Rs.14/- denomination in the hand tray of the claimant and the same was not accounted in the SR. The claimant also misbehaved with the checking Officials and not cooperated with them at the time of check and also instigated the passengers causing obstruction to perform their duty. The checking Officials also reported that the claimant without taking the service SR moved his bus for some distance and gain returned back along with passengers to Challapalli at about 00.10 Hrs and took the SR causing much inconvenience to the passengers in the mid night. A charge Memo was prepared by the checking officials and issued to the claimant.

It is submitted that in view of the seriousness of the case, the Depot Manager, Vijayawada placed the claimant under suspension on 12-4-2006 and on the same day a Charge sheet was issued to 4 the claimant with the charges as mentioned in the claim statement. As the explanation of the claimant to the charge sheet was not convincing, in order to provide further opportunity to defend his case, the

Depot Manager, Vijayawada ordered to conduct a detailed Domestic Inquiry by appointing A.M (T.Inquiries), R.M's Office, Vijayawada as Inquiry Officer.

It is submitted that the Inquiry officer conducted inquiry by following the principles of natural justice and also by providing opportunity to the claimant to defend his case and submitted his report to the Depot Manager, Vijayawada by holding that the charges leveled against the claimant have proved.

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada communicated the findings of the Inquiry Officer to the claimant calling for his comments/objections on the inquiry report and the claimant submitted his comments.

It is submitted that after perusing the inquiry report together with the entire evidence available on record, the Depot Manager, Vijayawada came to a provisional conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner have proved and that the penalty of withholding annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as Not on Duty is fit and proper to be imposed on the claimant and also imposed the said punishment by lifting the suspension of the claimant and further he was directed to the Divisional Manager (Rural), Vijayawada for further posting Orders and subsequently he was posted to Autonagar Depot.

It is submitted that the Appeal and Review petitions submitted by the claimant was considered by the concerned authorities and the same were rejected on merits.

This respondent further submits that though the charges leveled against the claimant have proved and the proved charges constitute grave misconduct, the respondent took a lenient view by imposing the above said punishment on the claimant. Therefore, this respondent prays this court to dismiss this I.D without granting any relief.

3)No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of claimant

No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.M1 to M24 are marked on behalf of respondent.

Heard both sides.

The points for consideration in this case are :

1)Whether, the action of the Divl. Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada in imposing the punishment of with holding two annual increments with cumulative effect to M.Butchibabu, Conductor, APSRTC, E. 91637, Auto Nagar Deport, Vijayawada is justified ? 2)To what relief, the claimant is entitled ?

5

4) Point No.1 : The Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent contends that the checking officials

R.ES, Machilipatnam, exercised check on the claimant on 3-4-2006 while the claimant was conducting the vehicle on the route Pedakallepalli , at Stage No.16 Challapalli. The checking officials found one punched ticket of Rs.14/- denomination ticket in the hand tray of the petitioner and the same was not accounted in the SR. Further, the claimant misbehaved with the checking officials and instigated the passengers against the checking officials. The claimant also moved the bus without taking the STAR

Document from the checking officials to some distance and again returned along with bus and passengers and took SR and caused inconvenience to the passengers in the mid night on that day.

The Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent further contends that the charges leveled against the claimant have proved during the Domestic Inquiry and further submitted that though the proved charges constitutes severe misconduct, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada took a lenient view by imposing punishment of with holding annual grade increments with cumulative effect for a period of two years. Since already a lenient view has been taken on the claimant, this respondent prays this court to dismiss this I.D without granting any relief.

On the other hand, it is the vehement contention of the claimant's counsel that while the claimant operating the above service, a passenger asked him to issue one ticket by stating that he was

CAT Card holder. Then, the claimant removed Rs.14/- denomination ticket and asked the said passenger to produce CAT card. Since the said passenger failed in producing CAT card ticket, the claimant placed the said Rs.14/- denomination ticket with a rubber band and it was not punched. Since it was not punched, there was no necessary to account the said ticket in the SR. The claimant's counsel further contends that the claimant had not misbehaved with the checking officials. Since the checking officials implicated the claimant in a false case, he requested the checking officials in a loud voice to to frame false charges. Requesting the checking officials in a loud voice is not misbehavior.

The claimant's counsel further contends that it is the duty of the checking officials to return the

SR to the claimant after completion of checking. But they did not handover the SR to the claimant and since they did not handover the SR he collected the SR from the checking officials. Therefore, the charges leveled against the claimant have not proved and prays this court to set aside the punishment order of Depot Manager, Vijayawada and prays a direction to the respondent for release of his increments.

6

Perused the entire material on record. Ex.M3 is spot explanation of the claimant at the time of check itself. In his explanation, he stated that initially he (The claimant) took Rs.14/- denomination ticket from the bundle and tried to punch the same, but at the same time the passenger failed to produce

CAT card, again he issued Rs.16/- denomination ticket to the said passenger by placing the said Rs.14/- denomination ticket in the bundle and he did not commit any mistake.

The above spot statement of the claimant clearly shows that when he was trying to punch on Rs.

14/- denomination ticket, in the mean while the said passenger in question failed to produce CAT card, therefore, he kept the said Rs.14/- denomination ticket by place it in the tray and issued actual ticket fare of Rs.16/- denomination ticket to the said passenger. His statement clearly shows that Rs.14/- denomination ticket was not punched by the claimant. When it was not punched, the said Rs.14/- denomination ticket was valid ticket till it was punched and accounted in the SR. Therefore, the first charge leveled against the claimant has not proved. The charges 2 to 4 are interlinked charges to that of first charge.

Ex.M12 is statement of one A.S Narayana, the statement of TTI who exercised check on the claimant. During his cross examination, this witness stated that all the passengers traveling in the bus possessed valid and correct tickets. He further stated during his cross examination that even the alleged passenger in question also possesses Rs.16/- denomination tickets. Therefore, all the passengers traveling in the bus were having valid and correct tickets framing charge No.1 by the checking officials is false and baseless.

With regard to second charge that is misbehavior of the claimant with the checking officials, this witness stated during inquiry that while they (checking officials ) preparing case, the claimant shouted loudly that they (checking officials) implicated him in a false case and due to implication of him in the false case, he might have lost his job.

Expressing the genuine grievance of the claimant in a loud voice is not misbehavior with the checking officials. Since the claimant was really implicated by framing false case, he might have apprehended with regard to fate of his job and stated loudly like that. It will be termed as genuine anguish but not misbehavior towards checking officials. With regard to instigation of passengers by the claimant, this witness has not stated any thing. Therefore, Charge No.2 leveled against the claimant has also not proved.

7

With regard to third and fourth charges, this witness stated during inquiry under Ex.M12 that this claimant gave signal to move the bus without taking the SR from them (third charge ) and again returned to them along with bus and passengers and took SR and caused inconvenience to the traveling passengers in the bus in that mid night (4th Charge).

But it is the duty of the checking officials immediately after completion of check, SR has to handover the claimant. But they did not hand over the SR and retained the same till the claimant came back and asked for SR. Therefore, the charges 3 and 4 leveled against the petitioner have also not proved. Therefore, I hold that imposition of withholding of two annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect by the respondent on the claimant is illegal and not justified and the same is set aside. I answer the point No.1 accordingly.

5) Point No.2 : Since the charges leveled against the claimant have not proved and as I answer the

Point No.1 in favor of the claimant, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for release of increments which were with held by the respondent. I answer the point No.2 accordingly.

In the result, the reference is answered holding that the action of the Divisional Manager,

APSRTC, Vijayawada in imposing the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect to Sri M.Butchibabu, Conductor, E.91637, Auto Nagar Depot, Vijayawada is not justified and the same is set aside. The respondent is directed to release the said increments. This reference is answered and Award is passed accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Office Superintendent who discharges duties of Senior Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23rd Day of August 2013.

PRESIDING OFFICER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimant.

No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent.

8

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

Ex M1 & M2 : Star documents

Ex.M3 : Spot statement of the claimant

Ex.M4 & M5 : Special Report and Charge Memo of the checking officials

Ex.M6 : Check sheet , Ex.M7: Confiscated ticket of Rs.14/- denomination ticket

Ex.M8 & M9 : Suspension Order & Charge sheet

Ex.M10 Explanation of the claimant to the charge sheet

Ex.M11 : Letter of Depot Manager for conducting of inquiry

Ex.M12 to M14 : Statements of witnesses during inquiry

Ex.M15 :Domestic Inquiry report

Ex.M16 : Lr. Of Depot Manager to the claimant for comments on inquiry report

Ex.M17 : Comments of the claimant on inquiry report

Ex.M18 : Lr of Depot Manager to the claimant

Ex.M19 : Show cause notice of proposed punishment to the claimant.

Ex.M20 : Explanation of the claimant to the show cause notice

Ex.M21: Punishment Order of Depot Manager, Vijayawada

Ex.M22 & M23 : Appeal and Review Proceedings

Ex.M24 : Photostat copy of Service record of the claimant.

PRESIDING OFFICER

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT : GUNTUR

PRESENT : SRI K.A.P SWAMY, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRESIDING OFFICER

This the 23rd Day of August 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE : 101/2008

Between :

The Depot Secretary, APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, Kavali Depot, Nellore District, Rep. For G.Venkateswarlu, E.112673, Drier, APSRTCCLAIMANT

AND

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, NelloreRESPONDENT

This petition coming before me upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for claimant and Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent, the court passed the following :

A W A R D

This is a reference made under Sec.10-1(C) of the I.D Act. The reference is as follows :

“Whether the action of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore in imposing the

punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, besides treating the period from the date of suspension to till the date of reporting for duty as Not on Duty for all purposes against Sri G.Venkateswarlu, E.112673, Driver, APSRTC, vide his

Orders dated 22-3-2007 is justified ?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?

The claimant filed claimant in which the averments in brief are as follows :

It is submitted that the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kavali Depot issued a charge sheet to the claimant on 14-9-2005 alleging that the claimant allowed a prohibited contraband luggage in Gunny bag kept in the spare tyre box if the bus containing 30 Liters of spirit in a Plastic can and card board box with one Liter bottle containing Whisky flavor of Bush company and tarnished the image of the

Corporation by allowing the said luggage and knowingly allowed to keep the said luggage in spare tyre box of the bus instead of in the main luggage box, while the claimant was on duty on the route

Bangalore to Kavali on 28-8-2004.

It is submitted that the claimant submitted his explanation denying the said charge. But without considering the same, a Domestic Inquiry was conducted against him, in which the principles of natural 2 justice were not complied with. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. Based on the erroneous findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kavali Depot issued proceedings dated 12006 reducing the pay of the claimant by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

It is submitted that while imposing the above punishment, the Depot Manager did dnot supply the copies of the documents more particularly the report of the Excise Inspector who conducted a ride on the bus of the claimant and the FIR copy No.97/05 dated 28-8-2005 which formed the basis for initiating disciplinary action against the claimant.

It is further submitted that the claimant was charge sheeted for the alleged offences Under Sec.

34(a)(e) of AP Excise Act and Under Sec.8(b)(ii) of AP Prohibition Act by Excise Police, lNellore in

C.C No.36/2005 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate (Excise), Nellore and the claimant was acquitted in the said case as per the Judgment dated 18-1-2007. In view of the acquittal of the claimant in the competent Criminal Court, the punishment imposed against the claimant is bad in law.

It is further submitted that the claimant preferred Appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager,

Nellore, against the punishment Order of the Depdot Manager, but the same was mechanically rejected

It is further submitted that the claimant preferred Review Petition to the Regional Manager,

APSRTC, Nellore and the same was considered and the Regional Manager modified the above said punishment by confining the punishment to one incremental stage with cumulative effect. Therefore, this claimant prays this court to set aside the punishment Order imposed by the Regional Manager and prays a direction to release of the said increment.

2)The respondent filed counter in which the averments in brief are as follows :

It is submitted that the claimant while operating the vehicle on the route Bangalore to Kavali on 28-8-2005, when the bus reached Venkatachalam Stage near Nellore4, the Proh. & Excise personnel checked the bus of the claimant and detected that the claimant knowingly allowed the contraband luggage in a gunny bag kept in spare tyre box of the bus containing 30 Liters of rectified spirit in a plastic can and Card board box with one liter bottle containing whisky flavor of Bush company. Based on the F.I.R of the Proh. & Excise Department, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kavali placed the claimant under suspension and issued a charge sheet to the claimant with the following charges :

3

Charge No.1 :

“For having knowingly allowed the contraband luggage in a gunny bag kept in spare tyre box of the bus containing 30 Liters of rectified spirit in a plastic can and card board box with one liter bottle containing whisky flavour of Bush company as per the FIR 97/2005 dated 28-8-2005 of

Proh. & Excise Inspector, Nellore in your Service bus on the route Bangalore to Kavali on 28-8-2005 when checked by them at Venkatachalam at 5 AM on 28-8-2005 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

Charge No.2 :

For having tarnished the image of the Corporation by allowing the contraband luggage in your Service Bus while on duty on the route Bangalore to Kavali on 28-8-2005 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations.1963.

Charge No.3:

For having knowingly allowed to keep the above luggage in the spare tyre box of the bus instead of in the main luggage boot and side luggage box of the bus while on duty on the route

Bangalore to Kavali on 28-8-2005 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxii) of APSRTC

Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963.

It is submitted that as the explanation of the claimant to the charge sheet was not convincing, the Depot Manager ordered to conduct a detailed Domestic Inquiry by appointing the Asst. Manager (Inquiries) as Inquiry Officer.

It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer provided all reasonable opportunities to the claimant to defend his case by following the principles of natural justice and submitted his report to the Depot

Manager holding that the charges leveled against the claimant have proved.

It is submitted that the Depot Manager after perusing the inquiry report, took a lenient view and lifted the suspension of the claimant and awarded punishment of deferment of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treated the suspension period as Not on Duty.

It is submitted that the Appeal preferred by the claimant was considered and the same was rejected on merits.

It is further submitted that the claimant preferred Review Petition to the Regional Manager,

APSRTC, Nellore and the Regional Manager, APSRTC further took a lenient view and modified the 4 punishment imposed by the Depot Manager into withholding of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Since already a lenient view has been taken on the claimant though the charges leveled against the claimant have proved, this respondent prays this court to dismiss this I.D without granting any relief.

3)No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimant.

No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.M1 to M14 are marked on behalf of respondent.

Heard both sides.

The points for consideration in this case are :

1) Whether the actiion of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect besides treating the period from the date of suspension to till the date of reporting for duty as Not on Duty for all purposes against Sri G.Venkateswarlu, E.112673, Driver, APSRTC vide his Orders dated 22-3-2007 is justified ?

2) To what relief, the workman is entitled ?

4) Point No.1 : The Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent contends that the claimant while working as driver on the route Bangalore to Kavali on 28-802005 allowed contraband luggage in gunny bag kept in spare tyre box which contains 30 Liters of the rectified spirit in a plastic can and also one card board box which contains one Liter of Whisky and the same was found at the time of

Inspection performed by the officials of Prohibition and Excise personnel on 28-8-2005 and thereby tarnished the image of the Corporation.

The Law Officer of APSRTC further contends that during inquiry the charges leveled against the claimant have proved and though the said charges are severe in nature, the Depot Manager,

APSRTC Kavali took a lenient view by imposing punishment of reduction of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

The Law Officer of APSRTC for respondent further contends that in the Review petition preferred by the claimant, this respondent considered the said petitioner and further took a lenient view by modified the punishment imposed by the Depot Manager to that of deferment of one increment with cumulative effect. Since, already lenient view has been taken, this respondent prays to dismiss this I.D.

5

On the other hand, it is the vehement contention of the claimant's counsel that the claimant did not commit any misconduct and he was falsely implicated in the said case. He also further contends that the case filed by the Excise Police against the claimant in CC 36/2005 was ended in acquittal as per the Orders dated 18-1-2007.

The claimant's counsel further contends that imposition of punishment of withholding annual increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment and in view if the above punishment, t;here was heavy monetary loss to the claimant and therefore prays this court to modify the punishment by imposing any lesser punishment.

Perused the entire material on record. Ex.M4 is explanation of the claimant to the charge which contains six pages. The claimant stated in his explanation that on 28-8-2005 he along with co driver one P.N Rao and another Attender conducting the bus AP 11z 9o5 on the route Bangalore to Kavali.

His co driver P.N was driving the bus and he was issuing tickets to the passengers through TIMS. One passenger boarded the bus at Hospet and while was closing the SR another passenger shouted 'Kavali

Kavali'. Then he instructed the service driver to stop the bus. The said passenger was having one gunny Bag. As there was no place in the diccy of the bus he opened the spare tyre box placed that gunny bag. At the time of issuing ticket he questioned that passenger with regard to contents of that gunny bag. Then he replied that it was the essence for preparation of Dhoop sticks and it contains only 22 Liters and there was no need to issue luggage ticket for that gunny bag. Then, the claimant issued traveling ticket to him and closed the SR at that stage. At Palamaner, the bus was stopped for taking meals. Then he (the claimant) took the bus from the said PN Rao for driving and the said PNRao tallied the passengers along with the ticket issues and and stated that it was tallied. From Palamaner the bus reached to Tirupathi. At Tirupathi point he issued tickets to some of the boarding passengers.

Then he counted the passengers for tallying along with ticket issues, it was not tallied and one passenger found missing. Then he informed the said matter to the On duty controller at Tirupathi and as per his instructions he waited for about 5 Minutes and as there was no person to come, he started the bus at Tirupathi and reached Naidupet. At Naidupet again Sri P.N.Rao the other Service driver drove the vehcile . He (The claimant) informed bout missing of one person to the said PN Rao the other

Service Driver also.

6

The claimant further submitted that at Venkatachalam Check post, the bus was checked by the

Excise personnel and found that gunny box at spare tyre and asked him with regard to the contents of the gunny bag. Then he replied them that he do not know the contents of the gunny bag and the person who belongs to the gunny bag was in the bus. Then he searched for that person but as there was no person claimed for that gunny bag. Then the excise personnel foisted a false case against him by stating that the said gunny bag contains prohibited goods containing 30 Liters of rectified spirit and the said bag belongs to him, without any proper and valid reasons.

With regard to charges 2 and 3, the claimant stated in his explanation to the charge sheet that the claimant stated that since he did not permit the said luggage which belongs to a passenger knowingly, the question of tarnishing the image of the corporation does not arise.

Ex.M8 is statement of claimant during Domestic Inquiry. He stated that that his charge sheet explanation maybe taken as his statement during the inquiry.

In his explanation to the charge sheet, the claimant denied the charges in to to.

The claimant along with claim statement filed copy of Judgment in C.C No.36/2005. The claimant was tried under Sec 34(a) and (e) of AP Excise Act and Under Sec.8(b)(ii) of AP Prohibition

Act, along with one Shaik Karim Basha the A2. The claimant was figured as A1. The claimant was acquitted for the above said offenses since the Prosecution has failed to establish that the contraband was in the possession of A1 and it was belongs to A1.

The excise Officials who exercised check on the bus while the petitioner was driving the, were not examined during the course of Domestic Inquiry. In view of non examination of the Excise personnel and in view of my above observation, I hold that Charges 2 and 3 leveled against the claimant have not proved. With Regard to Charge No.1 that knowingly allowed the contraband luggage was also not proved against the claimant. But the claimant is not supposed to permit the unauthorized and prohibited luggage into the bus. To that extent only part of Charge No.1 has proved. Therefore, I hold that the punishment of withholding annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative imposed on the claimant is illegal and not justified and the same is set aside. The above punishment is modified to that of non cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension till the date of reporting for duty as Duty period. I answer the point No.1 accordingly.

7

5) Point No.2 : This reference is answered by holding that the action of the Regional Manager,

Nellore in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect besides treating the period from the date of suspension to till the date of reporting for duty as Not on Duty for all purposes against Sri G.Venkateswarlu, E.112673, Driver, APSRTC vide his

Orders dated 22-3-2007 is set aside and the punishment is modified to that of deferment of annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect besides treating the period from the date of suspension till reporting to duty as duty period. The reference is answered and Award passed accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Office Superintendent who discharges duties of Senior Steno corrected and pronounced me in the open court, this the 23rd Day of August 22013.

PRESIDING OFFICER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of claimant.

No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.M1 : Charge sheet, Ex.M2 : Suspension Order

ExM3 : Preliminary Inquiry report, Ex.M4: Explanation of claimant to the charge sheet

Ex.M5: Domestic Inquiry Report.

Ex.M6 to M8 : Statements of witnesses During Inquiry.

Ex.M9 : Letter of respondent to the claimant for comments on inquiry report

Ex.M10 : Show cause Notice, Ex.M11: explanation of claimant to show cause notice

Ex.M12 : Punishment Order of Depot Manager, Kavali xM13 : Appeal proceedings, Ex.M14: Review proceedings.

PRESIDING OFFICER