BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT : GUNTUR
PRESENT : SRI V. APPARAO, B.Sc., B.L.,
PRESIDING OFFICER
This the 29th Day of June 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE : 142/2000.
Between :
Patan Khadar Basha Khan, S/o Budekhan, EX APSRTC Conductor, Nedar My Studio House, Atmakur (PO), Nellore District.
PETITIONER
AND
1) The Deport Manager, APSRTC, Atmakur Depot, Nellore.
2) The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore
RESPONDENTS
This petition coming before me upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Law Officer of APSRTC for respondents, and the petitioner called absent and no representation for petitioner, the court passed the following :
A W A R D
This applicatin is filed by one Patan Khadar Khan, Ex RTC Conductor,
Atmakur Depot, the petitioner Under Sec. 2-A(2) of the I.D Act 1947 for setting aside the Order of removal Dxated 7-1-1999 issued by the fcirst respondent and to direct the respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendent benefits together with interest at the rate of 12 % Per Annum on the arrears and costs of this petition.
The relevant facts in brief as mentioned in the petition are as follows :
The petitioner was appointed as a Casual Conductor on daily wage basis with effect from 16-5-1989 and his services were regularized with effect from 1- 4-1990. On 6-9-98, while the petitioner was conducting the Corporation Bus service No.437 plying on the route “Atmakur to Gudipadu”, the checking Officials of Regional Enforcement Squad, Nellore exercised a check at
Stage No.5/6 at about 9-35 Hrs and found that the petitiioner collected an amount of Rs.3/- each from six individual passengers who boarded the bus at A.S pet and bound for Gudipadu, Ex.Stages 4 to 6 and issued tickets which were already issued by him on 5-9-1998 at 16-00 Hrs “Atmakur-Gudipadu Service at
Stage No. 4 & 6, and accounted in the SR. Further, the petitioner has not closed the SR against Stage No.5 without completing issuing of tickets. . The respondent Corporation placed the petitioner under suspension on 14-9-19987 on the grounds of Cash & Ticket irregularities. A Charge Sheet was issued to the petitioner with the following Charges :
2
Charge No 1 : For having violated the Rule “Issue & Start”, which
constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(vi.a) of APSRTC Employees
(Conduct) Reg. 1963.
Charge No. 2 : For having collected an amount of Rs.3/- each from
six individual passengers who boarded the bus at A.S Pet and bound for
Gudipadu Ex.Stages 4 to 6 and issued tickets bearing No.335/166927 of
Rs 3/- E.1, 335/166928 of Rs.3/- E1, 335/166978 pf Rs.3/- E.1, 335/166987
of Rs.3/- E.1, 335/166979 of Rs.3/- E.1, 335/166982 of Rs.3/- E.1 (6
tickets) which were already lissued to the passengers on 5-9-98 in 16-00
Hrs. Atmakur to Gudipadu Service at Stage No.4 A.S Pet (Tickets
335/927 & 928 of Rs.3/- each E2) and in 07.40 Hrs. Gudipadu to Atmakur
Service on 6-9-98 at Stage No.6 Gudipadu (Tickets 335/166978 of Rs.3/-
E.1, 335/166 979 of Rs3/- E.1, 335/166982 of 3/- E.1, 335/166987 of Rs.
3/- E.,1), thus, you have reissued the above tickets which constitutes
misconduct under Reg. 28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.
1963”.
The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges leveled against him and stated the true facts. An enquiry was conducted in which the principles of natural justice were not coplied with. The first Respondent did not supply copies or extracts of all the documents which formed the basis for initiating the disciplinary action against the petitioner. The petitioner was also not suffciciently allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the management during the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer furnished the report holding that the charges are proved. As the objections on Enquiry Report and explanation to Show Cause Notice were found not satisfactory, the petitioner was removed from the service on 7-1-1999 by the First Respondent. On 11-2- 1999, the petitioner submitted appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager,
Nellore against the proceedings of the Depot Manager and the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority by Order Dated 7-8-1999. On 7-9-1999, the petitioner submitted Review Petition to the Regional Manager, Nellore and the same was also rejected by Order Dated 17-6-2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner workman filed this Industrial Dispute invoking Sec. 2-A(2) of I.D.Act.
The Respondent resisted the claim petition Inter-alia by contending that the petitioner involved many times in Cash & Ticket Irregularities and absenteism during the tenure of his service and that he was awarded with several punishments and prayed to up-hold the Order of removal of the petitioner from the service passed by the respondent corporation and to rject the claim of the petitioner.
During the enquiry, no oral evidence was adduced on both sides. Exs. M1 to M17 are marked on behalf of the respondents. No documents are marked on behalf of the petitioner.
3
Haaving considered the respondent's contentions and the documents marked on their behalf, my Learned Predecessor partly allowed the petition by setting aside the removal order of the petitioner and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages and without continuity of service and accordingly passsed the Award on 9-11-2004. In that Award, it was further ordered that the petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefit from the date of removal till the date of the said Award.
Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 4147/2006
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telangana and for the state of Andhra Pradesh and His Lordships Hon'ble Justice
M.Seetharama Murti allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the Award Dated 9-11-2004 passed by this court and remitted the matter to this court with a direction to dispose off the said I.D afresh on merits and in strict accordance with procedure established by Law. His Lordships further directed both the parties to appear before this court on 6-4-2017 at 10-30 AM either in person or through an advocate without fail and extend the cooperation for the expeditious disposal of the matter.
On 6-4-2017 the Law Officer of APSRTC for respondents filed Memo of
Appearence on behalf of the respondents. But the petitioner never present
before the court eventough, the Hon'ble High Court directed him to present
before this court on 6-4-2017. There was no representation on behalf of the
petitioner.
Heard the Learned Law Officer of APSRTC for respondents.
The Points for consideration in this case are :
1) Whether, the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and if so, whether the Order of removal of the petitioner from the service is legal and valid and the punishment imposed against the petitioner is in proportionate to the charges ?
2) To what relief, the petitioner is entitled ?
Point No 1 : In this matter, no oral evidence is adduced on behalf of both parties . Eventhough, it is the burden of the petitioner to prove his case as averred in his claim petition, for the reasons best known to him, he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. On the other hand, the respondents marked Ex. M1 to M17.
Ex.M13 is Domestic Enquiry Report. It appears that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the Domestic Enquiry Report (Ex.M13).
4
A perusal of the Domestic Enquiry Report (Ex.M13) and other documents marked on behalf of respondents particularly Ex.M1 to M5 ie., Conductor's
Statistical Return, Explanation of the petitioner to the Charge Memo, Conductors
Statistical Return, spsot statement of the petitioner and spsot statement of the passengers, in clear and categorical terms, in clear and in the absence of evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner, the charges against the petitioner are proved. The petitioner collected an amount of Rs.3/- each from six individual passengers who boarded the bus at A.S Pet and bound for Gudipadu Ex.Stages 4 to 6 and issued tickets bearing No.335/166927 of Rs 3/- E.1, 335/166928 of Rs.3/- E1, 335/166978 pf
Rs.3/- E.1, 335/166987 of Rs.3/- E.1, 335/166979 of Rs.3/- E.1, 335/166982 of
Rs.3/- E.1 (6 tickets) which were already issued to the passengers on 5-9-98 in 16-00 Hrs. Atmakur to Gudipadu Service at Stage No.4 A.S Pet (Tickets 335/927 & 928 of Rs.3/- each E2) and in 07.40 Hrs. Gudipadu to Atmakur Service on 6-9- 98 at Stage No.6 Gudipadu (Tickets 335/166978 of Rs.3/- E.1, 335/166 979 of
Rs3/- E.1, 335/166982 of 3/- E.1, 335/166987 of Rs. 3/- E.,1), and thus, he reissued the above tickets of Rs. 3/- denomination tickets. Theredfore, I hold that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved.
So far as the punishment imposed on the petitioner in removing him from service, the Learned Law Officer of APSRTC for Respondents submitted that the petitioner was reinstated into service as per the directions given in the Award
Dated 9-11-2004 passed by this court, and thereafter, the petitioner retired
fropm the service on 31-7—2012. He further submitted that the procedure was followed in accordance with law while conducting the Domestic Enquiry and opportunity was given to the petitioner incrosexamining management witness during the Domestic Enquiry and the principles of natural justice are also followed. The Law Officer of APSRTC for Respondents further contends that the petitioner misappropriated the amounts collected towards fare from the passengers and issued used tickets, without issuing the tickets on that relevant date to those six passengers from whom he collected Rs.3/- each and therefore, the Order of removal of the petitioner from the service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied on the following Rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court :
In KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND LB.S
HALLIKATTI 2001-1-LLJ-725, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“Dismissal from Service :- For short collection of fare from
passengers by respondent – Conductor – Labour Court awarded lesser
punishment by reinstating him with back wages –
5
High Court awarded full backwages – conductor being in service for 22
long years, hard to believe that he did not know what correct fare was –
Charging lesser fare could only be for financial benefit. Not fit to be
retained in service – Responsibility of Conductor to collect correct fare –
Awarding of dismissal – As conductor has since retired, reinstatement
order not set aside. But no back wages to be paid – However will be
entitled for retiral benefits”.
In another Decision reported in UPSRTC VS. RAMA KRISHNA ARORA 2007-III-LLLJ-171, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :
“Punishment – Quantum of – Interference therewith by High Court
without finding it was disproportionate – Criminal breach of trust by
person holding positiion of trust, such as conductor in this case, held,
was serious misconduct – Interference by High Court with punishment of
removal from service, not justified”.
In the above case, the Respondent, a conductor in Appellant Corporation was removed from service for not lissuing tickets to passengers after collecting the fare. The Labour Court held him not guilty and directed his reinstatement with back wages. The High Court, while considering the charge against the respondent proved, however, imposed on him stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and directed his reinstatement without back wages. This order was challenged by the Transport Corporation and the same was allowed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and held as follows :
“ The charges against the respondent having been proved, the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was not
justified in reducing the punishment”.
Having considered the above observations of Their Lordships of the
Hon'ble Apex Court and since the charges proved against the petitioner proves
his misconduct of misappropriation of the amount which causes loss to the respondent Corporation, I am of the considered view that the order of removal of the petitioner from the service is legal and valid and the removal of the petitioner from the service is in proportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. I answered the point No.1 accordingly.
Point No. 2 : In the light of my findings in Point No.1, this petition is liable to be dismissed without costs.
In the result, this petition is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Office Superintendent who discharges duties of
Senior Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open court, this the 29 th Day of July 2017.
PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT
6
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined For:
Petitioner side : NilRespondents side : Nil.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER : NIL
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
Ex M1 6-9-98 : Conductor's Statistical Return
Ex.M2 : Explanation to Charge Memo
Ex.M3 : 5-9-98 : Conductors Statistical Return
Ex.M4 6-9-98 : Spot Statement of petitioner
Ex.M5 6-9-98 : Spot statement of passengers
Ex.M6 6-9-98 : Charge Memo
Ex.M7 6-9-98 : Special Report of TTIs
Ex.M8 : Rs.3/- Denm. Tickets.
Ex.M9 6-9-98 : TTIs Checksheet
Ex.M10: 14-9-98 : Charge Sheet
Ex.M11 : 14-9-98 : Suspension Order
Ex.M12 18-9-98 : Explanation to Charge Sheet
Ex.M13 : 9-11-98 : Enquiry Report
Ex.M14: 2-12-98 : Show Cause Notice of removal
Ex.M15 :25-12-98 : Explanation to Show Cause Notice of removal
Ex.M16 : 7-1-99 : Removal Proceedings.
Ex.M17 : Service Record of the petitioner.
(Ex.M1 to M17 are Photostat Copies)
PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT