VACANT FAC Smt C.Sumalatha, I Addl. District Judge

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. C.Sumalatha, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

MONDAY THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 I.D.No.64/2013

Between:

R.S.Manyam, Aged 27 years, S/o Rajagopalachary, Resident of M.Nasampalle (V), Mukkalathuru (P), G.D.Nellore (M), Chittoor District. ….Petitioner/Workman

AND

1)The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kuppam Depot, Kuppam, Chittoor district.

2)The Deputy Chief Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Chittoor,…. Respondents/Management Chittoor district. . This Industrial Dispute is existing between the Petitioner and the Respondents and it is a direct filing of the Claim Statement under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 4-8-2015 before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri B.S Hussain, Law officer of the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) Questioning the action that is taken against him by the Respondent’s Corporation i.e., removal from service, contending that the said action is illegal, invalid, unjust and arbitrary and thereby seeking the court to direct the Respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, with full back-wages and with all other attendant benefits, the Petitioner in the capacity of Workman approached this Court invoking section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2) The matrix of the case as narrated in the Petition is that the Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Respondent’s Corporation in the year 2009 and from the date of joining he was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly, continuously to 2 the utmost most satisfaction of his superiors and while that was so, a charge sheet was issued to him and the charges that were levelled against him are;

1. “For having allowed public distribution scheme rice E28 bags of each 50 KGs in your service vehicle from Tirupatur to Kuppam on 23-10-2012 while performing duty on the route Kuppam to Tirupatur with Veh.No.AP28Z 0084 and the vehicle was seized by civil supplies authorities Vellore at Narayanachervu near Natrapalli which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (iv) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.

2. For having allowed E28 bags of each 50 KGs public distribution scheme rice as unaccompanied luggage from Tirupatur to Kuppam on 23-10- 2012 which shows your gross negligence while performing duty and constitutes a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees conduct Reg.1963.

3. For having been arrested by Civil supplies department and sent for remand up to 07-11-2012 for illegal transportation of public Distribution scheme rice involving moral turpitude which is punishable under the provision of Indian Penal Code which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xv) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.

4. For having caused loss of earnings to the vehicle seized by Civil supplies department, Chennai from 23-10-2012 to 01-11-2012 to a tune of Rs.70,000-00 and imposed penalty by civil supplies authorities, Vellore of Rs.53,200-00 due to your fraud and misappropriation with the property of the corporation and constitutes a misconduct under Reg.28

(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.

5. For having failed to inform the vehicle seize matter to Depot Manager and Depot supervisors on 23-10-2012 which was seized by Civil Supplies Police, Tamilnadu which shows your gross negligence and supplies police, Tamilnadu which shows your gross negligence and violated the instructions of the Corporation which and constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (x) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.”

3) It is stated that the charges that are levelled against the Petitioner are false and baseless and he had not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet, but by conducting an illegal, invalid, arbitrary enquiry action was taken against the Petitioner and there is no prohibition of allowing rice in the service bus and the Petitioner did not allow unaccompanied luggage since a passenger was very much present at the time of seizure and the said passenger escaped when the vigilance staff approached the spot, but the 1st Respondent without seeing the material on record, passed an illegal, invalid, unjust and arbitrary order of removal and the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate and the Petitioner is a poor man who is surviving with his aged mother and unmarried sisters and from the date of 3 removal from service, he is out of employment and therefore the relief sought for need to be granted.

4) Notice issued to the Respondents 1 and 2. The Respondents who came up on record filed Counter submitting that the Petitioner was appointed as Casual Conductor in the year 2009 and his services were subsequently regularised but his annual increments were deferred on 5 occasions, amounts were recovered from his salary on 10 occasions, he was finally removed from service due to his involvement in an illegal transportation of public distribution scheme rice and thus he is bereft of any clean record or service.

5) The Respondents contended that the Superintendent (T), Kuppam reported that while the Petitioner was performing service, he allowed 28 bags of Public distribution scheme rice each weighing 50 K.Gs inside the service bus as unaccompanied luggage from Tirupatur towards Kuppam and the vehicle was seized at Narayanachervu by Civil Supplies authorities, Vellore and the Petitioner was arrested for illegal transportation of public distribution scheme rice and as the vehicle was seized, there was loss of earnings to a tune of Rs.70,000/- and the civil supplies authorities imposed penalty of Rs.53,200/- and the Petitioner thereby tarnished the image of the Corporation which is a serious misconduct on his part and therefore he was suspended and charge sheeted.

6) The Respondents contended that all relevant documents and charge sheet were sent to the Petitioner and he submitted his explanation and in order to provide further opportunity to defend his case, domestic enquiry was ordered duly nominating the Assistant Manger (E), R.M’s office, Tirupati as an Enquiry Officer and the said Enquiry Officer conducted a fair and proper enquiry in accordance with C.C and A regulations duly following the principles of natural justice and submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved and therefore the objections of the Petitioner were called for and he submitted his objections and basing on the entire evidence available on record, provisional conclusion was arrived at and hence show cause notice of removal from service was issued and the Petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter final orders were issued.

7) The Respondents submitted that the appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected and the action taken against him is just, legal and proportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by him and all averments and allegations made in the claim statement are false and incorrect and the disciplinary authority took action by following the principles of natural justice and thus the I.D need to be dismissed.

8) During the course of proceedings, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner filed Memo submitting that the Petitioner is not disputing the validity of domestic enquiry 4 procedurally. Domestic enquiry was thus held to be valid subject to reappraisal of the same at the time of final arguments.

9) Reported no evidence on Petitioner’s side. Ex.M-1 to M-8 were got marked by the Respondents by consent.

10) Heard on both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether there exists any infirmity in Ex.M-2 proceedings that were issued by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings No.01/227(1)/2012-KPM dated 16- 2-2013 through which the Petitioner was removed from the services of the Respondent’s Corporation as contended by the Petitioner herein and if so, to what relief the Petitioner in the capacity of Workman is entitled to?

11) Submitting that the Petitioner did not commit any act of misconduct whatsoever, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was not at all aware of the fact that the rice packets loaded in the bus contains the rice pertaining to the public distribution scheme and the owner of the said rice bags did not inform the Petitioner about the source from which he got those rice bags and the Petitioner only with a bonafide intention to that the luggage bags will fetch revenue to the Respondent’s Corporation, allowed the said bags into the bus and only after the seizure of the said rice bags by the concerned authority, the Petitioner came to know that they are prohibited items for transportation and in these circumstances the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. Seriously assailing with the said submission, the learned Law Officer contended that the luggage that was seized by the Civil Supplied authorities, Vellore is unaccompanied luggage and the person who kept the said luggage bags in the bus was not present in the bus at the time of seizure of the said luggage bags and if at all the Petitioner was aware of the person/passenger who keep the luggage bags inside the bus, he ought to have shown the said person to Civil Supplied authorities who exercised check but nothing of that sort was done by the Petitioner and this itself goes to show that the Petitioner was transporting unaccompanied luggage and the said fact itself is sufficient to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner and further due to the acts of the Petitioner, the bus was seized by the Civil Supplied authorities, Vellore and it was kept in their custody for more than one week, due to which there was loss of earnings to a tune of Rs.70,000/- to the Respondent’s Corporation and further an amount of Rs.53,200/- was paid towards fine for getting the vehicle released and therefore the Petitioner was suspended and charge sheeted and as the charges that were levelled against the Petitioner were proved during the domestic enquiry, hence action was taken against him and in these circumstances, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief of reinstatement. The petitioner took different pleas during the different stages of proceedings. This is quite 5 clear when the documents that are exhibited by the Respondents are meticulously are perused. Ex.M-6 is the domestic enquiry report. It contains the statement of the Petitioner that was recorded during the domestic enquiry, in which he mentioned that some passengers loaded rice bags in the bus and as a Conductor, he allowed the said luggage. If the said fact is true, he would have shown those passengers to Civil Supplies authorities who exercised check. But no where he contended that he attempted to show those passengers to the Civil Supplies authorities, how many passengers actually loaded luggage bags, at what stage they boarded the bus and at what stage they intended to get down. Ex.M-7 is the objections that are filed by the Petitioner to the enquiry report. In the said objections the Petitioner mentioned that the owner of the luggage escaped from the spot. If the said fact is true, he would have shown the said passenger to the checking officials at the place of check itself and they would have caught hold the said passenger. But nothing went on as stated by him. That itself goes to show that the statement that the owner of the luggage escaped from the spot was made by the Petitioner is an afterthought. Also as earlier discussed, the Petitioner during the course of domestic enquiry stated that some passengers loaded the rice packets. It goes to show that more than one person loaded the rice bags. But as per contents of Ex.M-7, the version of the Petitioner is that the luggage owner escaped from the spot, which means that only one person loaded the entire rice packets. The inconsistency in the versions itself reveals that the Petitioner’s statements are far from truth. Seizure of the bus and collection of fine is not in dispute. These facts certainly would have tarnished the image of the Corporation as contended by the Respondents herein. The said incident went on only due to the acts committed by the Petitioner herein. Admittedly, the Respondent’s Corporation also sustained financial loss due to seizure of the bus. Having regard of these facts and circumstances and as the procedural aspects of the domestic enquiry are not in dispute, this Court is of the view that the action that is taken by the Respondent’s Corporation against the Petitioner herein cannot be found fault with. Admittedly, the action of an administrator cannot be interfered with, unless there are convincing ground and circumstances. This Court do not find any such grounds or circumstances to interfere with.

12) Though the Petitioner in the Petition filed, mentioned that action was taken against him through order dated 29-1-2013, but as per contents of Ex.M-2, the proceedings of removal from service were issued on 16-2-2013. For getting clarification on the said aspect, this Court reopened the matter on 14-7-2015 and heard both counsels. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner admitted that through proceedings dated 16-2-2013 i.e., Ex.M-2 the Petitioner was removed from service. Through the discussion that went on supra, this Court gave clear reasons as to why it 6 is not inclined to interfere with Ex.M-2 proceedings. Therefore the resultant conclusion of this Court is that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed.

13) In the result the I.D stands dismissed.

Award passed accordingly.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and passed by me

on this the 31stday of August, 2015.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

-Nil-

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.1-11-2012Suspension order.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.16-2-2013Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.25-3-2013Proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.1-11-2012Charge sheet.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.28-11-2012Explanation of the Petitioner.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.16-1-2013Domestic enquiry report.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.30-1-2013Objections submitted by the Petitioner.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.31-1-2013Show cause notice of removal from service.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Prepared By: Compared By:

7

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. C.Sumalatha, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

MONDAY THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

I.D.No.76/2014

Between:

M.S. Kumar, E.550960, Driver, S/o S.Kuppa Swamy Chetty, Aged about 36 years, D.No.15-28, Janapa Street, B.Kothakota Post, Chittoor Dist. ….Petitioner/Workman

AND

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

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

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

This Industrial Dispute coming on 4-8-2015 before me in the presence of Sri G.Srikanth, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri B.S Hussain, Law officer of the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) With an allegation that the action that is taken against him by the 1st Respondent i.e., removal from service through order dated 16-2-2013 is illegal, invalid, unjust and arbitrary and thereby seeking this Court to set aside the said order and to direct the Respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, 2 with full back-wages and with all other attendant benefits, the Petitioner in the capacity of Workman approached this Court invoking section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2) The facts of the case in nutshell as narrated in the Petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Respondent’s Corporation in the year 2002 and from the date of joining, he was discharging duties sincerely, honestly, continuously and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and while that was so, a charge sheet was issued to him and the charges that were levelled against him are;

1) For having allowed public distribution scheme rice E28 bags of each 50 KGs in your service vehicle from Tirupatur to Kuppam on 23-10-2012 while performing duty on the route Kuppam to Tirupatur with Veh.No.AP28XZ 0084 and the vehicle was seized by civil supplies authorities Vellore at Nayanachervu near Natrapalli which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (iv) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.

2) For having allowed E28 bags of each 50 KGs public distribution scheme rice as unaccompanied luggage from Tirupatur to Kuppam on 23-10-2012 which shows your gross negligence while performing duty and constitutes a misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees conduct Reg.1963.

3) For having been arrested by Civil supplies department and sent for remand up to 07-11-2012 for illegal transportation of public Distribution scheme rice involving moral turpitude which is punishable under the provision of Indian Penal Code which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xv) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.

4) For having caused loss of earnings to the vehicle seized by Civil supplies department, Chennai from 23-10-2012 to 01-11-2012 to a tune of Rs.70,000-00 and imposed penalty by civil supplies authorities, Vellore of Rs.53,200-00 due to your fraud and misappropriation with the property of the corporation and constitutes a misconduct under Reg.28 (ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.

5) For having failed to inform the vehicle seize matter to Depot Manager and Depot supervisors on 23-10-2012 which was seized by Civil Supplies Police, Tamilnadu which shows your gross negligence and supplies police, Tamilnadu which shows your gross negligence and violated the instructions of the Corporation which and constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Reg.1963.

3) It is stated that all the said charges are false and baseless and the Petitioner did not commit any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet but by conducting an illegal and arbitrary enquiry, in violation of the principles of natural justice, action as taken against him.

3

4) It is also contended that the Petitioner being a driver has no role to play as far as luggage is concerned since it is the duty of the conductor to accept the luggage or not and even otherwise the Petitioner was not aware of the nature of the rice that is present in the rice bags and the Petitioner is not at all responsible for the seizure of the bus and consequent loss of earnings due to the said seizure but the 1st Respondent without seeing the material on record took action against the Petitioner and the Petitioner is surviving with his aged mother and unmarried sisters and from the date of removal from service he is out of employment and therefore the relief sought for need to be granted.

5) Notice served upon the Respondents 1 and 2.

6) The 1st Respondent filed Counter stating that the Petitioner was appointed as casual driver in the year 1997 and subsequently his services were regularised but he was censured on 4 occasions in different cases, his annual increments were deferred on one occasion, amounts were recovered from his salary on 9 occasions, his services were terminated once due to involvement in a fatal accident case and later he was reinstated and again he was removed from service due to involvement in the present case and thus he is bereft of clean record or service.

7) The 1st Respondent contended that the Superintendent (T) of Kuppam reported that the Petitioner allowed 28 bags of public distribution scheme rice inside the service bus as unaccompanied luggage from Tirupatur towards Kuppam and the Civil Supplies Authorities, Vellore seized the bus for illegal transportation of the said rice and arrested the Petitioner and due to the acts of the Petitioner there was loss of earnings to a tune of Rs.70,000/- and further Rs.53,200/- was collected as penalty by Civil Supplies Authorities and the Petitioner thereby tarnished the image of the Corporation and hence he was suspended and charge sheeted.

8) The 1st Respondent also stated that all the relevant documents and charge sheet were sent to the Petitioner and the Petitioner submitted his explanation and in order to give further opportunity to defend his case, domestic enquiry was ordered duly nominating the Assistant Manager (Enquiry), R.M.’s office, Tirupati as an Enquiry Officer and the said Enquiry Officer conducted a fair and proper enquiry in accordance with C.C.A regulations duly following the principles of natural justice and submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved.

9) The 1st Respondents submitted that the objections of the Petitioner were called for and the Petitioner submitted his objections and basing on the entire evidence available on record, provisional conclusion was arrived at and hence show 4 cause notice of removal from service was issued and the Petitioner submitted his explanation and as it was felt that there were no fresh points worth consideration to revise the proposed punishment hence final orders were issued.

10) The Respondents further stated that the appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority and the action taken against him is just, legal and proportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by him and all the averments and allegations made in the claim statement are false and incorrect and as such I.D need to be dismissed.

11) The 2nd Respondent filed Memo stating that he adopts the Counter that is filed by the 1st Respondent.

12) During the course of proceedings, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner filed Memo stating that the Petitioner is not questioning the validity of domestic enquiry procedurally. Domestic enquiry was thus held to be valid subject to reappraisal of the same at the time of final arguments.

13) Reported no evidence on Petitioner’s side. Ex.M-1 to M-11 were got marked by the Respondents by consent.

14) Heard on both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether there exists any infirmity in the Ex.M-10 proceedings that were issued by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings No.01/227(01)/2012-KPM

dated 16-2-2013 through which the Petitioner was removed from the

Respondent’s Corporation as contended by him and if so, to what relief, the Petitioner in the capacity of Workman is entitled to?

15) With a submission that action taken against the Petitioner is capricious and arbitrary, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner being a driver has not responsibility whatsoever in respect of the luggage that is kept in the bus that too in the presence of a Conductor and the Petitioner being a Driver was concentrating on the road traffic and was driving the bus and he was not aware of the things that went on inside the bus and the Petitioner, though tried to submit the said facts to the Enquiry Officer as well as to the 1st Respondent on many occasions, they did not hear and finally he was removed from service and therefore he approached this Court for redressal. The learned Law Officer contended that along with the Conductor, Driver is equally responsible for the safe custody of the bus and the Petitioner ought to have observed what was going in the bus and what was being transported and taking a plea that he is not aware of those facts is incorrect and 5 therefore the I.D is not maintainable. The Respondent did not place before this Court any rule or regulation that fasten the responsibility upon the Driver to take care of the luggage which is being transported in the bus and also to verify the nature of the said luggage. In the humble opinion of this Court, it is the duty of the Conductor who should take care of all those things including issuing of luggage ticket to the holder of the said luggage. Admittedly, the Conductor of the bus was removed from service and the said action was confirmed by this Court through the orders rendered in I.D.No.64/2013 on the file of this Court. In Ex.M-6 and Ex.M-9 explanation, the Petitioner took a definite stand that being a driver, it is not his responsibility and he has no role to play as far as the luggage is concerned. As earlier stated, the Respondent did not place any material on record to show that the Driver also vests with the responsibility to verify the luggage and to take care of it. Therefore this Court is of the view that the action of removal from service by the 1st Respondent is not in accordance with the established principles of law. However, it is clearly brought on record that the Petitioner failed to inform the concerned authorities about the seizure of the vehicle by the Civil Supplies Department, Tamil Nadu as alleged in the charge No.5. Therefore to the extent of the said misconduct which is established during the domestic enquiry, proper action need to be taken. Thus this Court is of the view that the reduction of the basic pay of the Petitioner by one incremental stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect besides treating the period from the date of suspension till he reports for duty on his reinstatement as not on duty for the purpose of leave, wages and increments is a proper punishment that can be imposed. Therefore by all the above discussion, the resultant conclusion of this Court is that the punishment imposed through Ex.M-10 proceedings needs modification.

16) In the result Ex.M-10 proceedings that were issued by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings No.01/227(1)/2012-KPM dated 16-2-2013 are set aside and the Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service within one month from the date of publication of the Award. The punishment is modified to that of reduction of the basic pay of the Petitioner by one increment stage for a period of one year which shall have effect on his future increments besides treating the period from the date of suspension till he reports for duty as not on duty for the purpose of leave, wages and increments.

Award passed accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno-Typist, corrected and passed by me on this the 31stday of August, 2015.

6

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

-Nil-

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.23-10-2012Report of the HC/KPM.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.25-10-2012Report of the Superintendent (T), KPM.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.25-10-2012Report of the DC (T), KPM.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.1-11-2012Charge sheet.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.1-11-2012Suspension order.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.26-11-2012Explanation of the Petitioner.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.16-1-2013Domestic enquiry report.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.31-1-2012Show cause notice of removal from service.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.18-2-2013Explanation of the Petitioner.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.16-2-2013Proceedings of the disciplinary authority.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.27-11-2013Proceedings of the appellate authority.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Prepared By: Compared By:

7

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt. C.Sumalatha, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

FRIDAY THE 28 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

I.D.No.144/2014

Between:

The Secretary, APSRTC, National Mazdoor Union, Tadipatri depot. … Petitioner/Workman

AND

1) The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tadipatri depot.

2) The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur. … Respondents/Management

This is an Industrial Dispute existing between the Workman and the Management and it is referred by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool in Proceedings No.D1/2103/2014 dt.18-12-2014 under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 3-8-2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Ramachandra, Advocate for the Workman and of Sri B.S. Hussain, Law Officer for the Respondents/Management and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) Striking at the powers granted under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-IV, Kurnool referred the dispute that exists between the Secretary, APSRTC, National Mazdoor Union, Tadipatri depot who is representing the Workman by name S.Bhaskar, E.No.575768 on one hand and the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tadipatri depot and the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur on the other hand for adjudication.

The issue that is referred for adjudication is:

2

Whether the Secretary APSRTC National Mazdoor Union, Tadipatri depot is justified in demanding revocation of punishment order No.Progs.No.PA/675(72)/2001-RM’A’ dt.11-03-2002 issued by Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur against the Workman Sri S.Bhaskar, E.No.575768 by appointing as afresh Conductor Grade-II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled?

2) For the sake of convenience of discussion the Secretary, APSRTC, National Mazdoor Union, Tadipatri depot will herein after be referred as the Petitioner, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tadipatri depot as the 1st Respondent, the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur as 2nd Respondent and S.Bhaskar, E.No.575768, Conductor as the Workman.

3) After receipt of the referred case record, this Court issued notice to the Petitioner as well as to the Respondents.

4) The Petitioner who came up on record filed Claim Statement submitting that the Workman was appointed as Conductor in the Respondent’s Corporation during the year 1999 and he worked to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and he discharged his duties sincerely and honestly and while that was so, a charge sheet was issued to him duly placing under suspension and the charges that were levelled against him are;

1. “For having violated the Rule of Issue and Start while you were conducting the vehicle No.AP 9Z 7986 on route Tadipatri to Chitrachedu on 25-05-2000, which amounts to misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

2. For having collected an amount of Rs.6.00 (E.1=Rs.3.00) from a batch of two passengers at boarding point itself who boarded your bus at Pappur and alighting at Garladine ex.stages 06 to 06/07 and failed to issue passenger tickets up to stage No.06/07 i.e., Garladinne, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (vi) (a) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.”

5) The Petitioner contended that the charges that were levelled against the Workman are false and baseless and indeed the two passengers who were found without tickets did not pay any fare to the Workman and they made a false statement to the checking officials as if they paid amount and indeed those two passengers deceived the Workman, and the checking officials, by force, made the Workman to write the spot explanation and one of the said passengers attended the enquiry and deposed that in order to escape payment of fine they gave a false statement that they paid amount but without considering those facts, Workman was removed from service and in the review Petition filed, he was reinstated into service as Conductor 3 grade-II afresh and the said punishment is highly disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed.

6) The Petitioner stated that under Regulation 8 of APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967, appointment a fresh is not one of the lesser punishment to be imposed and the said regulation clearly specifies that for good and sufficient reasons, penalty therein can be imposed, therefore the disciplinary authority has no authority to choose altogether different punishment and the past service rendered by an employee cannot be forfeited as a measure of punishment and therefore the punishment imposed need to be set aside by directing the Respondents to restore the continuity of service with all service benefits.

7) The Respondents filed Counter stating that the disciplinary authority passed orders during the year 2000 but the Petitioner approached this Court during the year 2014 i.e., after lapse of 14 years and therefore the I.D is not maintainable as per decision of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P which is reported in 2013 (3) ALT 711.

8) The Respondents submitted that the Workman was appointed as Casual Conductor in the year 1998 and subsequently his services were regularised but he was censured on 4 occasions, his annual increments were deferred on 10 occasions and his services were terminated due to involvement in a strike case and later he was reinstated into service and subsequently he was removed from service and was later reinstated afresh for having been involved in a cash and ticket irregularities case i.e., the present case and thus he is bereft of any clean record or service.

9) The Respondents contended that TTIs of HES, Hindupur reported that they exercised a check over the vehicle that was conducted by the Workman on route Tadipatri to Chitrachedu on 25-5-2000 and detected that he collected an amount of Rs.6/- from a batch of two passengers at Pappur but failed to issue tickets to them within stipulated time and therefore he was suspended and charge sheeted.

10) The Respondents stated that all relevant documents and charge sheet were sent to the Workman and the Workman submitted his explanation and in order to provide further opportunity to defend his case, domestic enquiry was ordered duly nominating the Assistant Manager (Enquiry), R.M’s office, Anantapur as an enquiry officer and the said enquiry officer conducted a fair and proper enquiry in accordance with C.C and A regulations duly following the principles of natural justice and submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the Workman were proved and therefore the objection of the Workman were called for but he failed to submit his objections and basing on the entire evidence available on record, provisional conclusion was arrived at and hence show cause notice of removal from service was issued and the Workman submitted his explanation and as it was felt that 4 there were no fresh points worth consideration to revise the proposed punishment hence final orders were issued.

11) The Respondents further submitted that the appeal preferred by the Workman was rejected and he again preferred appeal to the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapuramu and the same was considered and he was appointed as afresh Conductor Grade-II and thus the action taken against him is just, legal and proportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by him. The Respondents also contended that all the averments and allegations made in the claim statement are false and incorrect and the Enquiry Officer took into consideration all the material and action was taken against the Workman judiciously and therefore the I.D need to be dismissed.

12) During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel for the Petitioner filed Memo submitting that the Petitioner is not questioning the validity of domestic enquiry procedurally. Domestic enquiry was thus held to be valid subject to reappraisal of the same at the time of final arguments.

13) Reported no evidence on Petitioner’s side. Ex.M-1 to M-20 were got marked by the Respondents by consent.

14) Heard on both sides.

The issue that is referred for adjudication is: Whether the Secretary, APSRTC, National Mazdoor Union, Tadipatri depot is justified in demanding revocation of punishment order No.Progs.No.PA/675(72)/2001-RM’A’ dt.11-03-2002 issued by Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur against the Workman Sri S.Bhaskar, E.No.575768 by appointing as afresh Conductor Grade-II.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled?

FINDINGS ON THE REFERRED ISSUE :

15) Without going into merits of the case, the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the punishment imposed is highly illegal as appointment of any employee afresh is not provided under APSRTC (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations and therefore the said punishment is improper. Replying the said submission, the learned Law Officer contended that if the said punishment, in the opinion of this Court is not in accordance with law, it can be modified with any other suitable punishment.

5

In support of his submission that appointing an employee afresh is not one of the modes of punishment, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision that is rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P in W.P.No.14220/2007 dated 27-6- 2012 between the Regional Manager (HCR), APSRTC, JBS, Secunderabad and another and B.Prabhakar Goud and another wherein his lordship held as follows; “It is relevant to notice that under Regulation 8 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, appointment afresh is not one of the lesser punishments to be imposed. The said Regulation clearly specifies that for good and sufficient reasons the penalties stated therein can be imposed upon the employees of the Corporation.

Therefore, either disciplinary authority, appellate authority or revisional authority have to properly use their discretion in selecting suitable punishment that can be imposed for the proven misconduct of an employee. They have no authority to chose an altogether different punishment and impose the same on the employee. Appointing an employee afresh is not one of the punishment prescribed.

In other words, the past service rendered by an employee cannot be forfeited as a measure of punishment.”

16) The learned counsel for the Petitioner did not argue or submit anything in respect of the merits of the case. His only request is that the punishment imposed is not the one that is mentioned in the conduct regulations of APSRTC. Admittedly, the procedural aspects of the domestic enquiry are not in dispute. Also the Workman himself gave spot statement which is marked as Ex.M-4 to the effect that he collected the requisite fare of Rs.6/- from the passengers in question. Thus taking into consideration these facts, this Court considers desirable to modify the punishment as submitted and prayed for by both parties. This Court is of the humble view that for the mistake committed by the Workman, reduction of his basic pay which he was getting as on the date of incident by one incremental stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect is an appropriate punishment that can be imposed.

17) Therefore, the issue that is referred for adjudication is answered holding that the Petitioner is partly justified in demanding revocation of the punishment that is imposed through Ex.M-20 proceedings vide proceedings No.PA/675(72)/2001.RM.A

dated 11-3-2002. The punishment imposed through Ex.M-20 proceedings is modified

to that of reduction of pay of the Workman by one incremental stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Through the said modification in the punishment, the Workman is entitled for continuity of service and other service benefits.

Award passed accordingly.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and passed by me

on this the 28thday of August, 2015.

6

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

-Nil-

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.25-5-2000TTI’s check sheet.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.25-5-2000Charge Memo.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.-Cover containing top punched tickets.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.25-5-2000Petitioner and passenger statement.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.25-5-2000Statistical returns.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.30-5-2000Charge sheet.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.30-5-2000Suspension order.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.13-6-2000Explanation of the Petitioner.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.4-7-2000Allotment of the enquiry officer.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.20-9-2000Call letter for enquiry.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.28-10-2000Domestic enquiry report.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.6-11-2000Objections called about enquiry.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.-Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

14)Ex.M-14Dt.18-11-2000Show cause notice of removal from service.

15)Ex.M-15Dt.-Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

16)Ex.M-16Dt.11-12-2000Explanation of the Petitioner.

17)Ex.M-17Dt.12-12-2000Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

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

19)Ex.M-19Dt.8-6-2001Proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

20)Ex.M-20Dt.11-3-2002Proceedings of the Review Authority.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Prepared By: Compared By:

7

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt. C.Sumalatha, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

THURSDAY THE 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

I.D.No.58/2014

Between:

The Depot Secretary, APSRTC, Employees Union, Rayadurg. … Petitioner/Workman

AND

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Uravakonda. … Respondent/Management

This is an Industrial Dispute existing between the Workman and the Management and it is referred by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool in Proceedings No.D1/355/2014 dt.28-02-2014 under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.

This Industrial Dispute coming on 21-7-2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Workman and of Sri B.S. Hussain, Law Officer for the Respondent/Management and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) Striking at the powers granted under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-IV, Kurnool referred the dispute that exists between the Depot Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Rayadurg who is representing M.Hanumappa, E.No.409978, Conductor, Uravakonda Depot and the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Uravakonda for adjudication.

The issue that is referred for adjudication is: Whether the Depot Secretary, APSRTC, Employees Union, Rayadurg is justified in demanding the revocation of punishment order No.02/95(151)/07-UKD, dt. 16-11-2007 issued by Depot Manager, APSRTC, Uravakonda against the Workmen Sri M.Hanumappa, E.No.409978, Conductor, Uravakonda Depot “by way of postponement of annual increment when next falls due for a period of two years which shall not effect on his future increments”.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled?

2

2) For the sake of convenience of discussion, the Depot Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Rayadurg will herein after be referred as the Petitioner, M.Hanumappa, E.No.409978, Conductor, Uravakonda Depot as Workman and the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Uravakonda as the Respondent.

3) On receipt of the referred case record, this Court issued notices to the Petitioner as well as to the Respondent.

4) The Petitioner who came up on record, filed claim statement submitting that the Workman was appointed in the Respondent’s Corporation as Conductor in the year 1995 and from the date of joining he was discharging his duties sincerely,

honestly and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and while that was so, a

charge sheet was issued to him alleging that he committed certain cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the bus on 3-10-2007 and in deed the Workman has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet, but without conducting any enquiry and without even issuing show cause notice, the Workman was punished and the said punishment is illegal, invalid, unjust and arbitrary and therefore the punishment imposed need to be set aside by directing the Respondent to pay difference of pay and with full wages for the period of suspension.

5) The Respondent filed Counter stating that the Workman was appointed as Conductor in the year 1995 and it was reported by the TTIs of ZES/Nandyal that they exercised a check on the vehicle conducted by the Workman on 3-10-2007 on route Guntakal to Uravakonda and when they asked the Workman to hand over the service S.R and ticket tray in order to check the vehicle, he did not cooperate and he instigated the passengers that if check is exercised, he will be removed and therefore they could not exercise check and hence a charge Memo was issued against the Workman and he was placed under depot spare.

6) The Respondent submitted that since the explanation submitted by the Petitioner to the charge Memo was not satisfactory, the case was entrusted to the Superintendent (T), Guntakal for conducting preliminary enquiry and the Superintendent (T), Guntakal conducted preliminary enquiry and opined that the Workman failed to issue tickets to all the passengers at the time of check and created ugly scene and also obstructed the discharge of legitimate duties by the TTIs and hence the Workman was charge sheeted.

7) The Respondent contended that all the relevant documents and charge sheet were sent to the Workman but he failed to submit his explanation and therefore final orders of postponement of annual increment when next falls due for a period of two years which shall not have effect on his future increments were issued and the 3

Workman preferred appeal but the same was rejected and thus the action taken against him is just, legal and proportion to the gravity of misconduct committed by him. The Respondent stated that all the averments and allegations made in the claim statement are false and incorrect and therefore he relies upon the decisions that are rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in W.P.No.4968/2000 and in C.A.No.3086/2007 and thus the I.D need to be dismissed.

8) During the course of proceedings, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner filed Memo stating that no domestic enquiry was conducted. The learned Law Officer also endorsed the same.

9) Reported no evidence on Petitioner’s side. Ex.M-1 to M-13 were got marked by the Respondent by consent.

10) Heard on both sides.

The issue that is referred for adjudication is: Whether the Depot Secretary, APSRTC, Employees Union, Rayadurg is justified in demanding the revocation of punishment order No.02/95(151)/07-UKD, dt. 16-11-2007 issued by Depot Manager, APSRTC, Uravakonda against the Workmen Sri M.Hanumappa, E.No.409978, Conductor, Uravakonda Depot “by way of postponement of annual increment when next falls due for a period of two years which shall not effect on his future increments”.

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled?

FINDING ON THE REFERRED ISSUE :

11) It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Workman did not commit any kind of misconduct whatsoever and the Respondent, in a most irregular way, without conducting any domestic enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the Workman to offer his explanation, issued proceedings imposing punishment and thus the punishment imposed is against to the principles of natural justice and therefore the Petitioner representing the Workman approached this Court for redressal. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer contended that it is the duty of the Workman to cooperate with the checking officials while they enter the bus to exercise the check but the Workman failed to cooperate with them and further instigated the passengers to revolt against the checking officials and therefore action was taken against him and thus the I.D is not maintainable.

12) As per the version of the Respondent, incident occurred on 3-10-2007. But Ex.M-1 reveals that the Travelling Ticket Inspector’s check sheet was prepared on 5- 4 10-2007. Ex.M-2 is the charge Memo. It reveals that though the incident occurred on 3-10-2007, the said charge Memo was prepared on 5-10-2007 and it was issued to the Workman on 8-10-2007. Ex.M-5 is the explanation of the Workman for Ex.M-2 charge Memo. In the said explanation the Workman contended that when the TTIs entered the bus to exercise the check, passengers informed the TTIs that they waited for the bus for about 2 hours at Guntakal and after two hours the bus came and as the bus was full with passengers, Conductor took more than half an hour to issue tickets and the bus was stopped at the outskirts and if they proceed with the check now, by stopping the bus, they will not reach their destination within time and therefore the bus can be checked while in motion and the TTIs who could not resist the demand of the passengers, got down of the bus and followed the bus up to Uravakonda. Ex.M-8 is preliminary enquiry report. It contains the statement of the Driver by name N.Ramakrishna. He clearly stated that as the bus was running late by two hours the passengers revolted against the TTIs for stopping the bus for check again. This Court do not find any convincing material on record to show that it is the Workman herein who instigated the passengers to revolt against the TTIs as alleged in Charge No.2 of Ex.M-9 charge sheet. Also record discloses that after issuing of Ex.M-9 charge sheet, without even giving opportunity to the Workman to give explanation to those charges, disciplinary authority i.e., the Respondent herein straight away issued order of punishment. This action in the humble opinion of this Court is improper. Thus, taking into consideration of the fact of absence of convincing material that the Workman committed any misconduct as alleged in Ex.M- 9 charge sheet and as the Respondent failed to give any opportunity to the Workman to submit his explanation to the charges laid, this Court is of the humble view that the punishment imposed is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, in view of the discussion that went on supra, this Court considers desirable to answer the issue that is referred for adjudication in favour of the Petitioner.

13) In the result the issue that is referred for adjudication is answered holding that the Petitioner is totally justified in demanding revocation of punishment that is imposed upon the Workman through Ex.M-11 order vide order No.02/95(151)/07-UKD

dated 16-11-2007. Thus the Workman is entitled to the relief of restoration of his

annual increment which was postponed through Ex.M-11 order and for the incremental arrears.

Award passed accordingly.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and passed by me

on this the 10thday of September, 2015.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, 5

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

-Nil-

FOR RESPONDENT:

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.5-10-2007TTIs check sheet.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.5-10-2007Charge Memo.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.5-10-2007Special report.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.-Statistical returns.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.9-10-2007Explanation of the Petitioner.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.23-10-2007Allotment of the enquiry officer.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.-Acknowledgment of the Petitioner.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.27-10-2007Preliminary enquiry report.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.3-11-2007Charge sheet.

10)Ex.M-10Dt.-Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

11)Ex.M-11Dt.16-11-2007Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

12)Ex.M-12Dt.-Acknowledgement of the Petitioner.

13)Ex.M-13Dt.29-10-2012Proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Prepared By: Compared By:

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. C.Sumalatha, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer

TUESDAY THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 I.D.No.11/2014

Between:

V.Madhusudhana, 46 years, C.No.42311, C.Conductor, S/o Subbanna, Gadela Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ….Petitioner/Workman

AND

1)The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Rajampeta Depot, Rajampeta, Kadapa District.

2)The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kadapa, Kadapa District.

…. Respondents/Management

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

This Industrial Dispute coming on 10-8-2015 before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri B.S Hussain, Law Officer of the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court passed the following.

A W A R D

1) Challenging the validity of the termination order that was passed by the 1st Respondent through proceedings No.02/95(178)/08-RJPT dated 17-09-2008, seeking the Court to set aside the said termination order and to direct the Respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, with full back-wages and with all attendant benefits, the Petitioner in the capacity of Workman approached this Court invoking section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2

2) The factual matrix of the case as narrated in the amended Claim Petition

dated 22-6-2015 is that the Petitioner was appointed as contract Conductor in the

year 2007 and from the date of joining he was discharging his duties sincerely,

honestly, continuously and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and while that

was so, when he was conducting the bus on route T.Sundupalli to Rajampet on 16-8- 2008, a check was exercised and charge Memo was issued to him alleging that he collected an amount of Rs.19/- towards fare and Rs.112/- towards luggage fare for 28 tomato baskets from a passenger at the boarding point itself who boarded the bus at Vanarajupalli and bound for Rajampet and issued tickets which are unconnected to the STAR document. It is stated that the Petitioner was a spare conductor and by the time he approached the authorities to find out his duties, the bus was already brought to the bus stand by the service Conductor and about 100 persons boarded the bus and they made hue and cry for starting the bus and by handing over the ticket tray, star document the Petitioner was directed to conduct the service and therefore he had no time to verify the ticket tray and the star document and therefore the mistake crept in. It is also stated that the officer who conducted preliminary enquiry also concluded that the ADC was also responsible for the lapse and further there is no bad intention or motive on part of the Petitioner to misappropriate the revenue of the Corporation and without issuing any charge sheet and without conducting regular enquiry, action was taken against the Petitioner and the Petitioner is surviving with his wife, aged mother and a son and in these circumstances the relief sought for need to be granted.

3) Notice given to the Respondents 1 and 2.

4) The Respondents who came up on record filed Counter submitting that there is abnormal delay of six years in raising the I.D and therefore the I.D is not maintainable as per order of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.9806/2008.

5) The Respondents submitted that the Petitioner was selected to the post of Conductor on consolidated wage basis and his services were terminated due to involvement in a cash and ticket irregularities case i.e., the present case and it is alleged and reported by the TTIs of HES/PDTR that on 16-8-2008 they exercised a check on vehicle that was conducted by the Petitioner and found out that he issued tickets which are unconnected to the S.R which are not shown in the star document and as such the agreement of contract service which was entered with the Petitioner was terminated.

6) The Respondents stated that all the averments and allegations made in the claim statement are false and incorrect and the services of the Petitioner were terminated as he was driving the vehicle detrimental to the interest of the 3

Corporation besides safety to the public and the persons like the Petitioner should not be continued in service in the interest of the Corporation and encouraging such employees shall give wrong signal in the cadre and may result in further occurrence of incidents and the disciplinary authority took right decision to meet the ends of natural justice and as such I.D need to be dismissed.

7) During the course of proceedings, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner filed Memo submitting that the Petitioner is not questioning the validity of domestic enquiry procedurally. Domestic enquiry was thus held to be valid subject to reappraisal of the same at the time of final arguments.

8) Reported no evidence on Petitioner’s side.

9) Ex.M-1 to M-9 were got marked by the Respondents by consent.

10) Heard on both sides.

Now the point for termination is:

Whether there exists any infirmity in Ex.M-8 proceedings that were issued by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings No.02/95(178)/08-RJPT dated 17- 9-2008 through which the Petitioner was terminated from service as contended by the Petitioner herein and if so, to what relief, the Petitioner in the capacity of Workman is entitled to?

11) Arguing that the Petitioner did not commit any acts of misconduct whatsoever, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that without conducting any sort of domestic enquiry and without calling for atleast the explanation of the Petitioner, to state as to why the incident occurred, the Petitioner was removed from service and the acts of the Respondent’s Corporation against the Petitioner amounts to arbitrariness and unfair labour practice and in fact the Petitioner did not commit any misconduct and he did not misappropriate at least a single rupee of the Respondent’s Corporation and therefore the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. On the other hand the learned Law Officer contended that it is for the Petitioner to verify his hand tray and the blocks which were issued to him and as the Petitioner was not diligent while receiving the ticket blocks, the incident happened and therefore action was taken against him.

12) Admittedly, no domestic enquiry was conducted. It is not the version of the Respondent’s Corporation that the explanation of the Petitioner was called for at least in respect of findings in the preliminary enquiry. Also it is not the version of the Respondent’s Corporation that the Petitioner misappropriated the legitimate revenue of the Respondent’s Corporation. Ex.M-7 is the preliminary enquiry report. In the said report, the officer who conducted preliminary enquiry clearly mentioned that the ADC 4 by name Y.Narasaiah is also responsible for the incident to occur and further the DC (E) also failed to give proper guidance to the said ADC in supplying the ticket blocks. The Respondents did not specifically deny the narration of the Petitioner in specific with regard to the circumstances in which he was placed on that day and as to why he could not verify the ticket blocks. Thus, in these circumstances, this Court is of the humble view that the Petitioner cannot be alone be punished that too without conducting any proper enquiry as the fraudulent motive is on part of the Petitioner, his misconduct if any were not found through the documents produced and as the action taken against the Petitioner is in violation of the basic principle of audi alteram partem, therefore this court is of the view that the proceedings issued by the 1st Respondent i.e., Ex.M-8 are liable to be set aside. However as the Petitioner did not render any service to the Respondent’s Corporation from the date of Ex.M-8 proceedings, hence he is not entitled for any back-wages.

13) In the result Ex.M-8 proceedings that were issued by the 1st Respondent vide proceedings No.02/95(178)/08-RJPT dated 17-09-2008 are set aside and the Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service and with all attendant benefits if any except back-wages within one month from the date of publication of the Award.

Award passed accordingly.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and passed by me

on this the 8thday of September, 2015.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

-None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

-Nil-

FOR RESPONDENT:

5

1)Ex.M-1 Dt.16-8-2008TTIs check sheet.

2)Ex.M-2Dt.16-8-2008Charge Memo.

3)Ex.M-3Dt.-Cover containing top punched tickets.

4)Ex.M-4Dt.16-8-2008Passenger’s statement.

5)Ex.M-5Dt.16-8-2008Petitioner’s statement.

6)Ex.M-6Dt.16-8-2008Statistical returns.

7)Ex.M-7Dt.-Preliminary enquiry report.

8)Ex.M-8Dt.17-9-2008Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.

9)Ex.M-9Dt.23-1-2009Proceedings of the Review Authority.

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Prepared By: Compared By: